Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-05-03
SPEECH OF HON. JOHN #. HOUSE,
OF TENNESSEE,
In the House of Representatives,
Friday, April is, 1879.

Tn the House of Representatives,
| Friday, April IS, 1879.
| The House being in Committee of the
! Whole on the state of the Union, and hav-
ing under consideration the bill (H. R. No.
q making appropriations for the legislative,
executive, and judicial expenses ofthe Gov
eminent for the fiscal year ending June 80,
1850, and for other purposes, Mr.. House said /:
Mr.. Chairman The scope and tenor of the
remarks which propose TO submit to the
Committee will make necessary at least a
passing reference to the entire batch of
laws sought to be repealed to wit, the stat
ute allowing troops to keep the peace at the
polls the test oath for jurors, and the cleo
tion laws. / shall enter into no labOred ar
gument to establish the unconstitutionality
of those laws, for the constitutional argu-
ment has been so clearly and so ably made
by gentlemen who have preceded me, and
remains so conspicuodsly unanswered and
unrefuted, that / would feel indispoSed to
embark upon that line the discussion even
if L felt that l could add anything to the
weight and conclusiveness of what has
already been said upon that subject; but l
desire to call attention to another aspect ia
which the laws in question may be viewed
and which to my mind furnishes sound and
sufficient reasons tor their absolute repeal.
1t should be the aim of all good govern
ment, especially of a government based on
the popular will, recognizing no privileged
classes. and proelaiming an equality of pOlit-
ical rights among all its citizens, looking to
the confidence and affection OF the people
as the frmest foundation for its stability, as
the best guarantee of its perpetuity, to sane
tion no law which will enable those vino
may happen to be in power to invoke its
provisions to perpetuate their ascendency
and to overawe opposition to their conttn-
uance in power. No such laws can secure
the willing acquiescence or command the
respect OF those who happen to be out OF
power, and who feel that they are the VIC
Tins of such unfair and unequal legislation.
We are told that no one can be hurt by the
mere presence of troops at the polls, charged
with the simple duty of keeping the peace.
But if troops are allowed by law to surround
the polls for this or any other purpose, it
cannot be denied that a President 50 dis
posed may use them in such a manner as TO
confer upon the political party that elevated
him TO Office, and to which he may look for
future fayors, a great advantage over ms
political opponents in all elections that
come off in the presence or under the super
vision of an armed force subject to his orders.
1t is no answer to this objection to assert
that during the time this law has remained
on the Statute-boOk no President has ever
abused it or sought to use 1T in his own in
tereSt or that of his party. On this point
there may be a difference of opinion. But if
the claim should be admitted to be just and
well founded, il would neither vindicate the
wisdom of the law nor disprove the danger
Gus character of the power conferred, 1t may
establish, if admitted, that we have been so
fortunate during the time the law has been
in force as to have Executives too patriotic
and honorable to use unworthily the power
placed in their hands; but there this argu-
ment for the harmless character of the law
spends its force. 1t is silent as to the future.
If this law is to remain on the statute-book,
who shall give to the country guarantee
that for all future time We shall continue to
have Presidents too good to abuse the dan
gerous power thus placed at their disposal
by a confiding people? 1t is as much the
duty of q Representative OF the people TO
repeal O law that confers dangerous powers
in advance of a positive evil arising from its
abuse as it is TO eliminate il from the stat
utes after its pernicious character has been
"A, s-X7- tod hN TpSnltG
wiser to do so.
must express my astonishment that any
man in this country can be found willing to
advocate the propriety OF conferr1ng, In
time of peace, such a power upon the EXecu-
tive. Such 4 law can never receive the de-
liberate sanction OF the American people.
The Anglo-SaXon race must forget all the
traditions of its history and be revolution
lied in all its instincts before II csn cease TO
look with jealousy, II not abhorre1ice, upon
one man. 1t is impossible to reconcile our
people to the existence of such power in
the hands of any President. It's Liability TO
abuse, its antagOnism to the genius Of our
Institutions, its antl-Hepublioan and un-
American character, not to mention the
constitutional objection, must always prove
l. may be that our people are too sensitive
and too Jealous upon snch questions; but
they came honestly by the failing, # It se be
ancestors The presence of armed troops at
the polls from the time of Edward 1. has
been considered dangerous to English lib
erty.
I735. embassies the utter adherence with
which the English mind contemplated the
presence Of an armed force at the polls
where free election was to be held, By
that act, whenever an election OF peers to
represent the peers of Scotland in Pariia-
nlent, OF. of any member of Parliament, is to
be held, it is made the imperative duty of
the Secretary of War TO order the removal OF
'severy such regiment, troop, or company,
or other number of soldiers as shall be quar-
tered or billeted in any such city, borough,
town or place." When such election is TO
be held the troops are to be removed at least
two miles from such voting place at least
one day before the election, to remain at
least two miles away from such voting place
further provided that If the Secretary OF
War should neglect or omit TO issue such
order to the troops he shall be liable 10 in
dictment, ahd, on conviction, shall be dis
missed from office and forever rendered
ineligible to hold any office, civil or milita-
nv, In the realm. Armed troops, under the
provisions of this act, were not only not
allowed to be present at the polls as a police
force to keep the peace, but, if they hap
pened 10 be quartered in a city, borough, or
town where an election was to be held, they
were required TO be removed and not even
allowed to be nearer than two miles of any
place where an election was TO be held.
In the light of this old English statuteFt
sounds strangely enough to hear American
statesmen in the year of 1873 upon the floor
of Congress defending law which allows
the Army, to send his armed troops TO the
polls.
One of the charges on which George III.
was arraigned at the bar of the civilized
world by the authors of our Declaration of
Independence was that he had sought to
render the military independent of ana SUI
uerior to the civil power. And another was
that he had quartered large bodies of armed
troops among the people Of the colonies,
Whv auy people with such antecedents
should be supposed to favor the law now
under discussion IL is difficult to see. The
nresence Of troops at the polls 70 keep the
peace. or for any other purpose, is an exper-
fmenf that was never tried in this country
until our unfortunate civil war; and the
law which permitted 10 then found its way
upon the statnte-b0ok only as war meas
ure Those who on the passage of the act
insisted on the presence of troops at the
rrlIs 10 keen the naana did -rnt affeinot to