The New York herald., 1879-03-30


He had been only stating what had been stated on
the floor of the House aud of the Senate.
MIR. ArKINs-Then state that proposition was
made in the Conference Committee the same as the
proposition now before the House. and which Is
proposed to be attached to this bill
Mr.. GARrIELD--I take il for granted that what my
friend says Is strictly true know nothing to the
contrary. The question may be asked why we make
any special resistance to propositions which great
many gentlemen have declared to be considered
of no Importance SO far as this side is concerned
desire to say this. We recognize you. gentlemen OF
the other side. skilful parlamentarians and
skilful strategsts; you have chosen wisely
and adroitly your line Of assault; you have
pnt 70 forward pernaps the least objection tSn
as one part of your programme We reply to it
an order of battle aud We are as much compelled by
mish line would be If you were attacking the
intrenchments themselves. And. therefore, on the
threshold. We desire to plant the general
grounds on which we choose to defend IL.
FERBLEsr GovERSMENT EARTH.
Mr.. GARFIELD then went to refer to what he
had stated the last day of the last Congress as TO
the division of the government into three parasitic
nation the Senate and the people and he said that
looking at the government as foreigner might look
upon it, it might be said to be the fecblest govern
ment on the earth while looking at it Ameri-
can citizens did il the mightiest gov
ernment foreigner could point out dozen
ways in which the government conld be killed,
aud that not by violence. OF course all governments
might be overturned by the sword But there were
some ways by which this government might be
utterly annihilated without the firing of gun. The
people might say that they would not elect repre-
sentatives, That. OF course. was violent supposi-
ton, but there was possible remedy for such
condition OF things ana without a House of Repre-
sentatives there could be no support Of govern
ment; so the States might say through
their Legislatures that they would not elect
Senators. The very abstention from elect
ing Senators would absolutely destroy the
government and there would be no process Of CON-
pulsion. Or, supposing that the two houses were
assembled in their usual order. and that bare ma
i0rifx pf ona I'm tharH oh r,nlx hipI
itself together and say that it would vote to adjourn
at the moment of meeting each day. and would do
that for two years in succession-in that what
would happen and what would be the measure of re-
dress? The government would die. There could not
be found in the whole range of Judicial or executive
authority any remedy whatever. The power of q
member of the House to vote free, and he might
vote mo- on every proposition of that kind 1t was
not so with the Executive The Executive had no
power to destroy the government. Let the Execu-
tive travel but inch beyond the line of law and
there was the power OF impeachment But il the
ee ;torS among the people who elected Represents
tives if the electors the State Legislatures who
created Senators, IL Senator's and Representatives
themselves abstain from the performance OF their
duty there was no remedy.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANT.
At first view it might seem remarkable. he said
that body of wise men like those who framed the
constitution should have left the whole side of the
fabric of government open to those deadly assaults
but on another view OF the cass they wise
What was their reliance? 1t the sovereignty
Of the nation, ON the crowned and annointed SOW
ereign to whom oil American citizens owed their
allegiance. That sovereign was the body of the peo
pie OF the United States inspired by their love of
country and their of obligation to public duty
As the orignators OF the forces that sent to
Congress to do their work they had no need of any
coersive authority to be laid on them to compel
them to do their manifest duty. Public opinion.
the level of that mighty ocean from which
all heights and all depths measured,
was deemed sufficient measure to guard that side
of the constitution and those approaches to the life
of the nation absolutely from all danger, all HARM
Up to this hour (he said) our sovereign has never
failed us. There has never been such abetention
from the exercise of those primary functions Of
sovereignty, as either to cripple or endanger the
government. And now, for the first time in our
history. and will say for the first time in at least
two centuries in the history of English speaking
upon that these voluntary powers shall be used for
the destruction of the government want 1t under
stood that the proposition which have read and
which is the programme announced to the Ameri-
people to-day is this day, that If cannot have
way in certain manner, VIC will destroy the gov
ernmen of this by using the voluntary power
ernment TO destroy it. What is our theory of law
1t is free consent. That the granite foundation of
our whole structure. Nothing in this Republic can
be law that has not tree consent of the House,
the consent Of the Senate and the free consent
Of the executive Or the executive refuses his free
consent then 1t must have the free consent of two
thirds OF each body. viii anybody deny that VIII
anybody challenge line OF that statemeut-that
free consent is the foundation rock OF all our nstr
tions
THREATS TO STOP THE GOVERNMENT
And yet the programme announced two weeks ago
waa that If the Senate refused to consent to the de-
mand of the House tho government should stop.
The proposition then, and the program me
is now, that although there not q
Senate to veto IL. there is still a
third Independent factor in tho Legislative
power of the government which ia to be coerced ut
the peril of the destruction OF the government It
the simplest and most inoensive proposition in the
world, yet il You demand as a matter of coercion
that it shall be put in. every fair minded repubi-
can in America would be bound to resist il as much
though his own life depended on his resistance. l
not arguing to the merits Of your three amend
ments at all; am speaking Of our methods, and I
say that they are against the constitution Of our
country. say that they are revolutionary to the
and that they tend to the destruction of the
sent of all the powers that unite to make the law
ask anybody to take up my challenge and TO show
me where hitherto this consent has been coerced as
condition precedent to the support of the govern
ment II is little surprising to that friends
on the other side should have gone into this great
contest on slender topic as the one embraced in
this particular bill. Victor Hugo ssid in his de-
scription of the great Battle of Waterloo that two
armies were like two mighty giants. and that some
the victory. 1t may be. gentlemen that there is
merely chip under your heel or it may be that you
treated it as chip on our shoulder But whether
it is under your heel or on our shoulder 1t repre-
sents matter OF revolution, and we fight for the
chip IL 1t ingot of the richest ore. loud
applause on the floor and in the galleries.)
A POINT FOR DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS
Let us see what the chip is. DO the gentlemen
know what they ask when they ask us TO repeal?
VINO 1nauc thls law Wh1cn you now demand 10
have repealed in this bill? II introduced
into the Senate of the United States by
a prominent democrat from the State of Ken
tucky (Mr. Powell. II was insisted upon in an
able and elaborate speech by him. 1t was reported
against by republican committee in that body. II
went through days and weeks of debate in the Senate
and when it finally came to be acted upon in that
body this is about the way tho vote ran Every
in the Senate voted for IL, aud every
Senator who voted against 1t was republican.
No democrat voted against it, but every democratic
Senator Noted for IT. lWho were thcyr Mcr.
Hendricks, of Indiana: Mr.. Davis, of Kentucky: Mr..
Of Maryland; Mr. McDouga OF California:
Mr. Powell. of Kentucky; Mr.. Richardson of Ill-
nois and Mr.. salisbury. of Delaware There were
fewer republican Senators who voted for IL
than there who voted against IL: Thirteen
republican Senators voted against il and only ten for
it, The bill then came 10 the House and was
put upon its passage here. And how did the vote
stand in this Dodyg Every democrat in the House of
Representatives voted for it--sixty of them The
total number of persons who voted for II in the
House about hundred and thirteen,
and OF that number majority dem
ocrats. The distinguish speaker of the
House. Samuel J. Randall voted for IL.
The distinguished chairman OF the Committee OF
Ways aud Means Fernando Wood) voted for IL. A
member from Ohio. now a Senator
from that State-Mr. Pcndlcton-votcd for it. Every
man Of leading name or fame in the democratic