Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1879-04-10

pt Atst "abt u HA7
derstood that the proposition which have
read, aud which Is the programme an
nouncei TO the American people to-day. is
this day. that il we csrpnot have our way In
a certain manner, we will destroy the Gov
ernmeut of this country by using the vol
untary power. not OF the people, but OF
ourselves against The Government TO de-
stroy II. What il our theory OF lawl II Is
free consent. Thst i the granite fuunda-
iion of our whole structure. Nothing IN
this Republic can be law that has not the
free consent of the House, the free consent
OF the Senate, aud ths free consent OF the
Executive. Or, II the Executive refuses
his tree consent. then II must have the Tree
consent of two-thirds of each body. VIII
any body deny that? viii anybody chal-
lenge a line of that statement-that free
consent il the foundation rock of all our
Institutions. And yet the programme an
nunnced two weeks ago was, that II the
Senate refused 10 consent to the demand OF
the House. the Government should stop.
The proposition was then. and the pro-
gramme j. now. that although there Is not
Senate to veto II. there is still third In
dependent factor In the legislative power
of the Government which il TO be coerced
at the peril OF the destruction OF the Gov
erimeui.
! am not arguing at present as TO the
merits OF your three amendments at ALL
am speaking of your methods. aud | say
that they are against the Constitution OF our
country. say that they are revolutionary
to the core. aud that they tend 10 the de-
stTuction OF III. first element Of American
liberty, which u free consent Of all the
powers that unite to make the law. II j.
little surprising to me that our friends on
he nF h.r - shnnfl ha {uf tbfs
great contest on so slender topic a. the
one embraced 10 this particular bill. Vic
tor Hugo said in his description OF the
great battle OF Waterloo. that two armies
were like two migh,y giants, and that some
times a chip under the heel of one might
determine the victory. IL may be. gentle
men, that there j. merely a chip under your
heel. or Il may be that you treated u a.
chip oH our shoulders. But whether u j.
under your heel or on our shoulder. Il rrp-
resenis a matter OF revolution, aud We fight
for the CHIP a. II It were an in.ot OF the
richest ore. loud applause on the door
aud ia the galleries.
VOTING AGAINST \ DEMOCRATIC MEASURE
Let us see what the chips. Do the gen
tlemcu know what they ask, when they
asA u, 10 rcpeaii Who made this Law
NNtIA gu now NsthAu4 10 nave ltIfAltl
la lhi, blI: q was introduced tutu the SEN
ate OF the United States by proiaturn:
Democrat from the state OF kentucky.
l. Mr.. Powell Il was insisted upon 10 al
able and elaborate speech by him. Il va,
reported against by a Republican commit
tee 10 that body II went through days and
weeks OF debate IN the senate, aud when Il
nuAily came to be acted upon In that body,
this j. about the Way the vote ran Every
Democrat in the Senate voted Tor 10. aud
every senator who voted against Il was
Republican. No Democrat voted AZ aiu,t
IL, bul every Democrats >enator voted tor
u. Who were they? Mr.. HeudricAs Of
Indiana, Mr. Davis Of Kentucky, Mr. John
sou Of Maryland. Mr.. McDougal Of Cali
ioruia. Mr. Powell OF Kentucky, Mr.. kIch-
ard.on Of Illinois, aud Mr Salisbury OF
Delaware. There were fewer Republican
Senators who voted tor il Than there werc
who voted against II. Thirteen Rspubll-
can senators voted against Il. aud oLIy ten
tor Il. The bill then came over 10 the
House, and was put upon Its passage here.
And hoS did The vote stand iu thi, body
Every Democrat in the House of Keprescu-
taiIyc. voted Tor Ito oflhem. The total
number OF persons who voted for il Ia the
House was about ll3. aud OF that number
a msjority were Democrats. The di.tin-
gul-hrd speaker OF the House, samuel j.
Randall. voted FOR Il. The Distinguished
Chairman OF tie Committee Of Ways and
Means, Fernando " ood voted Tor Il. A
distinguished member fTom ONO. now a
Senator from that State, Mr. Pendleton.
voted for IL. Eyery man OF leading name
or lame 10 the Democratic Party, uho Was
then - the Congress of the [ niied States
voted Tor the blil; aud not against Il, In
this House there were but few Republicans
who voted against Il. | was one OF the few.
Ihaddeus Steven. voted against II. What
was the object OF the bill at that time; Il
was this Il was alleged by Democrats
that. in those days OF war, there was inter-
ference with elections in the border States
There WAS no charge Of any Interference 10
the States where war did not exist But
lest there might be some infTsctiOn OF the
freedom OF elections, large number OF
Republicans ia Congress were unwilling 10
give any appearance Whatever OF interier-
ing with the freedom OF elections. and
voted against this isw a. an expression OF
their purpose that the Army should rot be
improperly used IN and about any election.
Mr. Stephens-I wish to ask the gentle
man II the country Is likely TO be reyolu.
tionizcd and the Government destroyed by
repeating law that the gentleman voted
against. Laughter on the Democratic
side.
Mr Garfield-l think not, Sir. That /.
not the element of revolution that have
been discussing. The proposition now /.
that fourteen years have passed since the
war, aud not one petition from any Ameri-
can citizen has come TO Us asking that the
law be repealed; not one memorial has
found lis way 10 our desks complaining OF
the law, and now the Democratic House Of
Representatives hold that IL they are not
permitted to force ON another House and
the Executive. against their viii aud
against their consent, the repeal OF a law
that the Democrats made. il shall be a suf
iicient ground for starving this Govern
ment. That is the proposition We are here
debating.
Mr. Wood, OF New York-Beiore the
gentleman leaves that part of this discus
sion. desire 10 ask him whether he wishes
To make the impression on this House that
the bii Introduced by Senator Powell, Of
Kentucky, which resulted finally in the
law of 1865, was the bill that passed the
Senate and the House, which he stated
that the present Speaker of the House and
my self voted Ia favor Of
Mr. Gsriield-I have not intlmated that
there were no amendments-there were
amendments.
Mr. Wood want to correct the i'm
preston. ] deny that so far as am per
sonally concerned ! ever voted for the
bill except as a substitute for a more per-
nicious and objectionable measure APP
plause on the Democratic side.1
Mr.. Garfeld-AIi | say is a matter OF
record. What | say is that the gentleman
voted for that law. and every Democrat in
the Senate and in the House who voted
at all voted for it.
Mr. Wood-I want to ask the gentle
man whether, in 1865, at the time OF the
passing OF this law, the war had really yet
Observation-Disclosures there was not portion
OF this country Ia a condition where il was
impossible to exercise an elective franchise
unless there was some kind Of military in
reference; and whether at the expiration
OF fourteen years after the war has sub
sided, that gentleman is yet prepared TO
| continue war measure In q time OF pro-
found peace in the countryf
Mr.. Garfield-I have no doubt that the
patriotic gentleman from New York took
| all those things into consideration when
no voted Tor that bill, and | may have
been patriotic in voting against IL, but he
| And must stand on our record as made
a