Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1879-04-30

, not attack it; they must acquiesce
law unlawfully asserted coerced obedi
ence.
This sentiment of obedience to Law
actuates all Of our people, and 1t is be
cause law and the power Of law bring
! troops TO the polls without necessity
, and in derogation of ono oil our grea
rights that we seek TO repeal this stat
ute. In my own experience hav,
, bad TO send an unarmed Sheriff 10 ar
rest q crowd of men acting in viola
tion Of law. When II was suggested
that we should have troops to aid the
officer, said no, true and brave mar
acting in the performance of his duty
under the command Of law is worth 1
thousand troops -and 80 IL proved
The feeble assertion that there is nc
danger Of intimidation because there il
only one soldier TO thousand square
miles is simply begging the question
Behind that one soldier stands the
power of great people. AT the polls
he is under the control Of his officer
and he may be directed TO do what
partisan aims or malignity may find
for him to do. Such q possible use Of
power is the deprivation of that great
right that finds its existence in every
bill of rights in this country, that be-
longs TO the people, is part Of theiI
ancient liberties, and to be protected
and preserved even at the sacrifice oi
the blood OF Anglo-Saxons.
There has been in the past nothing
Of the kind, and its enforcement now
takes away one of the greatest and
dearest rights that belongs to this
people.
We propose to take away this power
We propose to stand by the American
system of free elections. That is oui
doctrine in this bill. We propose to
stand by the American system as il
exists in the bills OF rights Of the States
and as il was found all over this coun.
try until this exercise OF war power in
1862, 1863, and 1864. We propose to
separate the ballot from the bayonet.
Wepropose TO restore TO the civil power
its absolute control over all the ma.
chinery of government. A free system
Of laws cannot tolerate even the posi-.
BILE use of force at the fountain-head Of
power. 1t is standing menace, a per-
petual threat. In the interest of the
people, in the light Of the plainest
principles of civil liberty, in the per
formance of a plain duty, in the exer-
else of the legislative power of this
people, we propose to restore to the
American people their own system Of
free elections.
The Congress Of the United States
makes appropriations for but two
years. The President of the United
States cannot enlist a man or pay a
dollar without an appropriation by
Congress. Congress makes rules tor
the government Of the land and naval
forces, and these short appropriations
and this limited authority OF the Ex-
ecutive over them are the very basis Of
our system. We propose, as | have
said, in the execution Of plain pur-
pose, following precedents and practice
and law and organic law to their legit-
innate results, TO restore by this bill to
the American people their own system
of free elections. Why should we not
do thisY Who denies the right to free
elections2 Has the Senator from Maine
denied this right2 Win any Senator
deny this right2 Will any gentleman
attempt to argue that the right to free
elections does not belong to this peo-
plo as one of their great cardinal
rights If so, why not restore il The
answer is much narrower than the
concealed but real argument. Are the
people not entitled to free elections ?
Why is it that Senators do not rise in
their places and assert that the people
have not a right to be free from Ex-
ecutive interference Tho argument
Of the Senator from Maine is that you
will not be interiered with, no troops
will interfere with you; there are only
so many troops here and 80 many
there; you are not being interfered
with. But the Senator forgets that
upon the statute-books of this country
there stands law which gives to the
Executive tho power, the right to do
this thing and that in partisan bitter.
ness, in the control Of elections by one
party or the other, a standing menace
may become an actual, terrible fact
in the future as it has been in the past
Are we met with frank denial OF
the value of this right or Of the right
Of this people to be freed at the polls
from the monaco OF armed force? ]
venture TO say that no Senator
will put his argument upon that
ground. None 80 bold as to assert
that in the heated partisan contests
that occur In the elections Of this
country the presence OF armed troops
controlled by the one or tho other po
litical party, conduces to free elections
Either the substance or tho shadow OF
military power at the polls is destruc
tive of the essential element contem
plated by almost every State constitu
tionin this country in its express guar
antee Of free elections. 'aiSi
Another aroument ia used Let n,
acc what Il is First we are denied
the power to mold legislation. That
;s tbe firs, arpument fbe two House,
Iof Congress the legislative power. /,
denied The right to mold Legislation II
lits own way' Second. IL Is said 10 b,
n revolutionary practice and coerciy,
| Of the Executive and third, that oul
intent a Chat il the drift of the argu
ment made by the Senator from Maine
10 break down the Government. M,
COLLEAGUE in the House, the Oldest il
service there. who trains with III,
-. l-,l. a.