The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1879-05-02
SENATOR corK11Ne,s SPEECH.
He Discusses the Army Appropriation
BILL
A FTNANcIAL sHOWING.


A FINANCIAL SHOWING.
Mr.. Conkling began his remarks by
saying: During the last fiscal year the
amount of national taxes paid into the
treasury were $234, 831 ,461. Ofthis sum
$13, 10000 and fraction were collected
under the tariff laws levying duties on
imported merchandise, and SOB 100000
and fraction on American production.
OF this total 1926 600, 600, in round num-
bers, 81 states which adhered to the union
during the recent war paid $221 ,204, 26S
The residue came from IL states, name
ly: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Flori-
da, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Caro-
lima, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
and Virginia. These IL states paid 3d.
627, 1872 of this sum, more tliaa Sc, SOC, 900
came from the tobacco of Airginia, and
deducting the latter sum freq the form
er, and the II states paid bui 81 ,125, 462
This great sum was collected under the
law. The constitution requires all bills
for raising the revenue 10 originate in the
house of Representatives. They are not re-
cent laws. They have been approved
and affirmed by succeeding houses, and
the last two houses were ruled over by a
Democratic speaker. The bills were re-
ported by a Democratic committee, and
houses are now Democratic, and We hear
of no purpose to repeal or suspend the
existing revenue laws. They are to re-
main, and to continue to operate and take
tribute of the people. If the sum stated
IS to be less than it was last year, it will
be only because the tobacco tax has been
reduced.
THIS VAST REVENUE
is paid for three uses. 1t is supplied in
time of great depression and distress to
pay the debt in which we have been in
vOlved by the rebellion, to pay pensions
of widows and orphans and of cripples
made by the rebellion, and to maintain
a government preserved at the expense,
not to be estimated, of life and treasure
To exact money, and then forbid that for
which the people paid it, would indeed
be perfdious and ahomipabIe. There
was only one mode in which it could
reach such uses, and that is an appro-
priation by law. The constitution so
orders. The constitution permits no dis
erection to majority or to congress,
whether it make the needful appropria-
ton or not. The constitution, however,
does commit to Congress the discretion
to ascertain how much money is needed,
but that done, the command to approprl-
ate it is positive and absolute The COM
mand to make the appropriation is plain
and peremptory, and a refusal to do so is
revolutionary and reasonable. So, too,
when the constitution invests congress
with power to provide money to pay
debts and provide for common defense
and general welfare. The plain mean
ing is that congress shall do this thing,
and refusal to do this is disobedience
to the constitution and subVersive of it.
Ifmembers of the Judiciary and executive
departments failed to do their duties un-
der the constitution, they would be liable
to impeachment If members of the leg
islative branch were likewise amenable
to punishment, for dereliction of duty, it
would be "a
PRAYER If NOT A LESS GUILTY
act to violate their exalted trust. In or
binary times truisms like these would be
needless, if not out Of place, in the SEN
ate. They are pertinent only because
an occasion has arisen unparalleled in
American history. If precedent could
be found, it should not be in a country
possessing a written constitution plainly
defining the rights of all living under it,
1t was not to transplant but to leave be-
hind the traditions of struggle between
subjects and rulers that our fathers fled
to these shores. 1t was to render impos-
sible caste distinction of an ill-adjusted
society, = It shows the design
to cOerce the executive into violating his
sense of right in order to permit the gov
eminent to live. Thus far the achieve
ments of the Democratic majority had
been easy, but the trial yet to come would
be more difficult. The party had got
themselves Into a prediCameht, unless
the executive led them out. Laughter
and approval. They had been told that
If the president refused to accept these
bills, with all their political excrescen-
ces, and yield to majority, they will
vacate their seats and leave the govern
ment moneyless. If the majority should
make such an attempt, he (ConklingI
hoped and trusted they would be called
back as long as need be, until they re,
linquished their mOpStrous pretention
and abandoned their reasonable posi-
ton. The army bill was not the same
bill in some of it features that it was
presented as the ultimatum of the Dem
Ocratic party few days ago. The pend
ing bill condemned its predecessor. 1t
had been found that they would have to
back out
THE BILL NEEDED ALTERATION.
Mr.. COnkling, In the course of his
vent the suppression of any violence by
any armed men acting under national au-
thority upon election day. In New York
every thug, shoulder-hitter, carrier of
dirk or bowie knife, every graduate of rat
pits, bucket shops and slums-the nur-
series of what is now called Democracy
and every man from Kings bridge to
the Battery is advised beforehand that no
enormity of his will be checked by the
law or officers of the government. TSen-
sation. Another bill to be brought for
ward provides that even if the elections
are turned into bloody burlesques the ma
tional authority must keep away, though
the White Leaguers may take an active
part, armed perhaps with muskets fur
n1shed by the government. If there ever
was time when such law would be
safe, that time is not now. The constitu-
ton says congress shall have the power
to provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the union. Speak
ing to lawyers, he wished to emphasize
the word execute" Ithad deep legal
significance. 1t
WARRANTED THE USE OF ARMS.
Mr.. Conkling asked his friend from
Kansas (Mr. Ingalls, to read for him the
section of the revised statutes passed in
pursuance Of and to put into effect this
constitutional provision. While this was
being done he took his seat for mo-
ment. Gen. Sherman came in and was
greeted by Mr.. Conkling, and took his
seat IN front of the speaker.
Mr.. Conkling resumed the constitu-
tional argument to show the authority
of the United States to use troops to pre-
serve the peace. The law proposed to be
repealed he said did not contain any au-
thority for a single soldier or armed man
to approach the polls ) its provisions were
directed to use of troops only as an organ
lied peace preserving body. The power of
the President in this matter rested on the
constitution and the act of 1875, and un.
til 1865 this had been deemed sufficient
authority. The question of extent of ma
tional authority rested somewhat on the
locus, to use legal term, in navy-yard
or other place wholly under United States
Jurisdiction. The authority of the Unit
ed States to use troops to keep the peace
could never be questioned under the act
protecting elections, which gave the
United States jurisdiction in congress
sional elections. The right to enforce
that jurisdiction was also conferred On
to 1854 no limitations had ever been pro
posed to this constitutional right. In
1851, Gen. Schenck and other generals
Issued orders keeping certain men from
the polls, and undertaking in some sort
of way to prescribe electoral qualifica-
lions.
GEN. MCCLELLAN, A DEMOCRAT,
And of course originally inspired by the
traditions of Democracy-and he had