Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1879-04-11
PARTY RECORD INVERTED.

FRIDAY MORNING. APRIL IL. 1879.
PARTY RECORD INHERITED.
The most graphic description of poll
tical situation is often found in the heart
of jest, and we have seen nothing more
descriptive Of the late struggle over the
Army Appropriation bill in congress than
the dry assertion that the heels OF the Re
publican party are where its head used to
be. This position of political organiza-
tion has about the same effect as
visits a similar demi-vault of the human
frame, and seems to have badly added its
brains. Leaving their party record out Of
the question, putting consistency behind
them, and apparently bearing in mind but
the single fact that their party has fallen
into minority, the speakers. on the Re
publican side pretended to see in this
effort of the Democracy for free ballot
box plan for starving the government to
death. They seemed in their debate to
lose sight Of the fact that free ballot is as
important to the North as to the South,
and as indispensable to the Republicans as
to the Democrats; that it was not sec
tional question, and should not have been
a party question. Their speeches, with
the exception of that of Mr.. Garfield, had
little of ability about them, and the lack
was made up by fierce denunclations OF
the ssrebel'' element, and a good deal OF
similar political slang which was in vogue
a decade ago. So carried away by anger
were they that the minority distinctly
threatened the majority with veto by
she President most unfortunate exhl-
bition of temper, and one which the more
cautious of the speakers attempted to pal
late by disclaimer. On the other hand
their Democratic opponents were cool,
wary, and determined, and their speakers,
notably Blackburn, of Ky; Hurd, of Ohio,
and Tucker, of Va, addressed themselves
to the discussion with high ability, I'M
mistakeable frmness and wise moderation,
The question was one of the gravest that
can ever engage the attention of the citi-
zens Of free government, and its discus
sion so clearly showed the animus of the
two parties with reference to the mode of
governing the people of the United States
that it is worth being stated in the clear
est way.
The Democratic party had majority in
the House of the 45th Congress, which ad-
iourned few weeks ago, but the Republi-
cans were in the majority in the Senate.
The Democratic House Of that congress
passed every appropriation, twelve in num-
hA ont
appropriations were liberal, and showed
not the faintest disposition to stint the ad-
ministration, still less to ''starve it to
death,o as Mr.. Garfield charged. When
these bills reached the Republican Senate
that body passed ten of them and refused
to pass two, one of the two being tn,
Army Bill, which has just been under dis
cussion. The refusal to pass that war
based on the fact that the Democratic
House had inserted in it clause repeating
law passed by Republican congress il
1866. authorizing the use OF Federal troops
at the polls. The Republican Senate also
refused to pass the Legislative, Judicial
and Executive Appropriation bills, becaus,
the Democratic House had inserted clauses
repeating the election laws, which al
thorize U. S. deputy marshals at the polls,
with power to arrest, and also another
clause providing for fairer mode OF Sc
lecting the iuries for Federal Courts. TIT
next congress, the Forty Sixth, both Senat'
and House Democratic, was immedlatel.
convened by the President, and the Arm.
Augmentation bill was first taken up b.
the new congress. The questions for dis
cussion, apart from all party views, wer
simply three-whether the repeal OF thu
law was constitutional; if so, was the mod'
of repeal adopted by the Democrats in &C
cordance with the custom and practice o.
congress, or was it, as characterized b,
Mr.. Garfield, Revolutionary, and, finally
were the measures themselves wise and ne
cessary. On the first point there coul(
hardly be discussion, so plain is the pro
position that where it is constitutional fo
congress to pass law it is also constltu
tional for the same body to repeal it.
is a mere question of policy, and what on
congress may deem good policy anothe
NAV consider bad. The second point. and
that which elected the most of the debate
was the method of the proposed repeal
that is the lacking the repeating clause OF
the 'Appropriation bill. Even MI. Gar
field said that if separate bill was passed
for the repeal he would support it, but he
held the present mode, to use his own
words, as ian effort to starve the govern
ment to death, and revolutionary In Its
character" How little Importance is to be
attached to the utterances of Republican
leaders may be seen by examining the re-
cord of the Republican party on this CUES
ton of method. Twenty-three years ago
in 1856, the first year the Republi
cans had a majority in the House
t;hey. on motion of Jno. Sherman, OF Ohio
nov Secretary of the Treasury, attached
to the Army Appropriation bill provlst
prohibiting the Democratic President from
using troops in Kansas and the Democrat
ic Senate refusing to concur, that congress
adjourned and went home without making
any appropriation for the army. Even ther
She mode was not new for at the open
ing of the Mexican war factlous opposl
ton existing, a provision was inserted In
the Army bill declaring that war existed
with Mexico. Then if we take the record
of congressional legislation we find that
since the Republicans have had control OF
it from July S, 1852, to the present
sighty-four Appropriation bills have had
three hundred and eighty-seven laws In
iected in them, and sent to the President
in that form. One of these laws was a
aagrant violation of the constitution o.
the country. We mean that lag inserted