Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-04-02
by the legislation of the last quarter Of Ger

ASSSAH
might be attached to appropriation bills, and
certainly no one would dispute the proposition
that measures in regard to economy and bear
ing on the revenue were required to be origi-
mated in the House. The House was right in
insisting that these Objectionable measures
because these provisions of law were unconsti-
tutional They interferred with the light of
suffrage and with State laws. The second Sec
tion of the constitution declared that the House
should be composed of members chosen by the
people of the several States and that the electors
should have qualifications requisite for electors
of the most numerous branch Of the State leg
islature. It was therefore, the most numerous
branch of the State legislature that determined
the qualifications of electors, and not the con-
stitution of the United States. There was no
such thing as right Of suffrage for citizen of
the United States. The right of suffrage was
possessed and enjoyed under the laws of States,
expressly recognized by the fundamental law
of the land. The supreme court had recently
SO decided.
On what theory did this legislation rest7 On
what theory did the government send troops to
the polls at State elections? Only on the the
ory that the right of suffrage was right guar
and that it was the business of Congress to
protect that right. He had shown, however,
by the express phraseology of the constitution
and by the decision of the supreme court that
no such right did exist under the constitution,
and therefore the consequence was inevitable
and irresistible that any legislation on the
subject was unconstitutional. He alluded to
the fact that the measures which it
was proposed to repeal were from
their very nature dangerous and destructive
to civil liberty, and said all history is full of
warning on this subject. No republic has ever
gone into its grave save through military inter
ference. Shall we escape the force and appli-
cation Of universal rule? Is power less
sweet, are rules more sacred, is liberty more
secure, that we can dare without harm to tam
per with danger that has wrought ruin every
where before. From lands where republics
erected on their ruins, from lands where the
contest for liberty is now going on ali over the
world, from lands where the shadow of despot-
ism overturns every household and compels the
citizen to seek shelter in foreign lands hopeless
to free himself at home there come solemn notes
the presence of troops at the polls. To control
elections by troops is a single step, and in that
step free elections fall, and free elections are
the originators of power in free government.
Troops at polls mean intimidation of voters.
They mean substitution of the bayonet for the
ballot, the encroachment of commander in
chief on the domain of the President. was
astounded, and regretted to hear from the other
side arguments in favor of use of tho army,
but my regret is lost in joy when 1 recollect
that the party of the army has not any power
in this Congress. applause on the Democratic
side).
1t has been said that it means revolution for
US to pass these bills as we propose. From the
beginning of the government has not the house
originated appropriation bills? Has it not
been competent to pass bill repeating law
on the statute books? The only question is
whether we can make repeal on an appropria-
ton bill. Revolution to pass an appropriation
ut tn ohi 40
statute? No! In the exercise of inherent con-
stitutional power the House does all this. If
there be revolution it is in the sug-
gestion which has come from the gen
tleman from Ohio (Garfeld.) If
resolution, it is in the suggestions which came
Republican party in the House. 1t is revolu-
ton against every theory of the constitution,
to the overthrowal absolutely of that instru-
meat, for member of this House, be he an in
innate friend of the President or not, to threat
en- the House with veto from the President if
cratic side).
I do not believe that the majority of this
House will be inundated from it's duty by a
threat of President, much less a threat of a
President whose title to the Office is 20 doubt
full and whose tenure of Office is yet so uncer-
tain. (Applause on the Democratic side, fol-
lowed by derisive laughter on the Republican
and cries of explain.
MIR. Hurd concluded: If the power of with
holding supplies shall be exercised, then never
in all the contests for liberty in English his
tory, never in all the victories which have made
that little stormy island the center of civiliza-
ton for the world never in all the struggle for
rights of man, was the power of withholding
| supplies exercised more wisely than
it will be when we exercise it
| to preserve the freedom of elections, to sub
ordinate in time of peace the military power to
the civil authority, and to preserve pure and
uncontaminated the sources of free government.
Mr.. Williams, of Wisconsin, obtained the
floor, but preferring not to speak until to-mor.
row, moved that the committee rise The mo-
ton was opposed by Mr.. Sparks and rejected
by party vote, whereupon Mr.. Williams
yielded part of his time to Mr.. Haskell, who
argued from the history of the border ruffiar
struggle in Kansas and the necessity for fedora
protection of the right of suffrage. At the close
of his speech the committee rose and tn.
| HOuse adiOnrned