The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1879-04-17
Murd,s Reply to Garfield.

Hurd's Reply to Garfield.
In the Federal House of Represen.
tatives, Oh the Let of April, Hon. Frank
H. Hurd replied to Hon. James A.
in substance, as follows:
Mr.. Hurd said if anything had
been settled by the Legislation of the
last quarter of century it was that
gcnerei legi Station might be attached
to appropriation bills, and certainly
no one would dispute the proposition
that measures in regard to economy
and bearing on the revenue required
to be originated in the House. The
House was right in insisting that the
objectionable measures should be re-
peaied. The House was right, first,
because these provisions of law were
unconstitutional. They interfered
with the right of suffrage and with
State laws. The second section of the
constitution declared that the House
should be composed of members cho-
sen by the people of the several States,
and that electors of the most numer-
Gus branch OF the State Legislature.
1t was therefore the most numerous
branch of the State Legislature that
determines the qualifications OF cleo
tors, and not the Constitution 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 laws
of the land, ana the Supreme Court
had recently, SO decided. On what
theory, then, did this legislation rest 2
On what theory did the Government
send troops to the polls at State elec-
tions? Only on the theory that the
right of suffrage was right guaran-
teed by the Constitution of the United
States, 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 decision of The Supreme Court,
that no such right did exist under the
Constitution, and therefore the conse
quence was inevitable aud irresisti-
ble 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 de
structive to civil liberty, and said all
history is full Of warning on this cub
ject. No republic has ever,gone in:o
its, grave. save through mili'ary ieter-
ference. Shall we escape ine .orce
and application OF universal rule ?
fs power less sweet? Are raies more
sacred Is liberty more secure that
we can dare without harm to tamper
with q danger that has wrought ruin
every where befOre2 From lands
where republics have been perished,
where mOnarchies have been erected
on their ruins, from lands where the
contest for liberty is now going on all
over the world, from lands were the
shadow of despotism overturns every
household. aud compels the citizen to
seek shelter in foreign lands, helpless
to free himself at home, there come
solemn notes of warning against mill
tary Interference. From the presence
of troops at the polls to the control of
elections by troops is a single step,
and III that step free elections fall, and
free elections are the originators of
the power of free government. Troops
at the polls mean intimidation of vo.
tiers, they mean substitution of the
bayonet for the ballot, the encroach.
ment of the commander-in-chief on
the domain of the President. I was
astonished and regretted to hear from
the other side arguments in favor of
the use of the army, but my regret is
lost in joy when l recollect that the
party of the army has not any power
in this Congress. TApplause on the
Democratic side 1t has been said
that it meane 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 a bill repeating a law on the stat
ute books? The only question is
whether we can make repeal on an
appropriation bill. Revolution to re.
peal an Objectionable statute2 No!
In the exercise of inherent constitu-
tional power the House does all this.
If there be revolution, it is il the sug-
gestiOn which has come from the gen :
,leman from Ohio Garfield. Ii there
be revolution, 1t is in the suggestions
which haye come from others of the
distinguished leaders of the Republi-
can party in this House. 1t is revolu-
tion against every theory of the Con-
stitution, to the overthrowal absolute
ly OF that 'ins trument, tor a member in
this House, be he an intimate friend
of the President or not, to threaten
the House with veto from the Pres
ident if you dare do right. Applause
on the Democratic side]. / do not be.
lieve that the majority of this House
will be intimidated from its duty by a
threat of a President, much less the
~ ,~r
Office is SO doubtful, and whose tenure
of oiiice is yet So uncertain. APP
plsusc on the Democratic side. follow
cd by derisive laughter on the Repub-
Jican side, and cries OF" Explain"
Mr.. Hurd concluded: Ii the power
of withholding supplies sh Ill be exer-
cised, then never in all the contests
Tor liberty in English history, never in
all the victories which have made this
little stormy. island the center of civil
izstiOn for the world, never i'm all the
struggles for the rights of man was
the power of Withholding supplies ex-
ercised more wisely than it will be
when we exercise 1t to preserve the
freedom of election, to subordinate in
time of peace the military power to
the civil authority, and to preserve
pure and uucontaminated the SCurces
of tree government.
whose Victory.
The result of the election in Cincin-
patti is claimed by the Republican poll
tioians as a decided and brilliant VIC
.ory for their party. But according to
5he Enquirer they can draw very little
from it. This is what it
amounts to:
"The, Democrats, in Cincinnati, not
,he Republicans, won the substantial
7ictory on Monday. We cannot judge
nteligently or fairly the vote OF this
;ity on Monday without comparing it
With the vote of the city in the cleo
ians imm ediatelX nrecadinu 1t L.