Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1879-05-27
..rHE QUESTION BEHIND.

4 II r NJ EsN lO-N DI4AAA%NS'
The following, from that staid old indie
pendent journal, the New York Evening
Post, puts the controversy over the appro-
priation bills in fair and true light. 1t
is ''the question behind which Repubh-
cans are fighting against, rather than for
the purpose of securing present triumph.
The debate in the Senate last week was
interesting and significant, not so much Tor
its pertinence to the pending question, the
bill in relation 10 military interference with
elections, as for its reference 10 remoter
subject. Behind this whole matter OF fed
eral election laws and their enforcement
rises a controversy as old as the govern
ment itself. The dispute respecting state
rights and national sovereignty Is revived
ON the slightest preteXt, or il may be cor
rect TO say that this dispute Is never IN
allowance. Throughout the debate in the
House of Representatives during the pres
ent session the Republicans have main
tanned the unqualified right of the United
States 10 assert their authority, while the
Democrats have resisted the exercise OF
this right As a usurpation of power and an
invasion Of the privileges and jurisdiction
OF the several states. In the Senate the
drif OF discussion Is in the same direction.
Last Thursday Mr.. Morgan Of Alabama Is
reported 70 have denied the authority OF
the federal government 10 center state.
ON FRIDAY Mr.. Edmunds Of Vermont con-
troverted this view and contended thar
there was no part Of the territory OF the
United States which that government could
not lawfully occupy. The line OF difference
seems to Toe distinctly drawn.
If il had been predicted during the late
war or lust upon It's close that this question
would survive IL; that the controversy
concerning the powers Of the United States
government and the state governments
would remain unsettled "a controversy
which led TO the war and which embraced
the political principles which underlay II
and the agitation for and against slavery
a. we'll: the prophet would have been as
sailed as mad and would have been asked
/ What have We been fighting for If not 20
put this question ont Of the way, 10 settle
/ mi, controversy? Are not the thousands
of lives ana the millions Of dollars wasted
| II we must agaiu confront this disputed
| What guaranty is there for the integrity
and perpetuity of the Union II the poison
] seed out of which grows the peStilent doc
/ triue OF notification and secession Is still
/ 20 De planted, watered and carefully nur-
/ turedg" II is fourteen years after the war,
and the old controversy Is raging again.
II this is the real question behind the
/ movement for the repeal OF federal election
! laws, we suspect that the voters Of the
country will make short work with il al
| the first opportunity. There Is not much
| difference or opinion in respect 10 the use
of troops al the polls. Very few persons
/ II any. desire to see the ballot-boNes sur
rounded with bayOnetS, and citizens pass
ing 20 them through two files OF soldiers
We doubt that any intelligent politician
even is in favor of such thing, and for &
very simple reason. If armed force may
be used at one time and in one place 10 in
| fueuCe and intimidate voters by this party
il may De used az another time and in an
other place by that party; and experience
shows that weapons OF this sort IN time
and in a short time, too, hurt those who
handle them more than anybody else. We
do not believe that there i any intent e
use troops AT elections. Moreover, We dc
not believe that any sober-minded person
really believes that there is such an intent
| This is aside from the practically impor
| tant fact that there are substantially ne
troops 20 use. The Congressional wranglt
on this subject Is largely a forced one, forced
on false grounds. IL is by no means clear
that a popular tempest can be aroused 10y
/ the Washington excitement. The people
perhaps, will not regard the difference on
the subject a far-reaching and important
/ \ revival of the old extreme doctrine OF
state rights. however, Is another matter
upon which the people would probably
have something 20 say. There has been q
/ general disposition 10 regard the movement
| at Washington As mere Skirnish prelim-
| mary 10 the battle Of parties next year
/ but if the debaterS are serious, if we take
them at their word, if behind this move
ment there j. a determination TO reaSSert
| the old doctrine upon which the country
has narrowly escaped Shipwreck, then we
| shall have something which we can discuss
earnestly in coming political canvasseS.
There are some politicians who seem 10
| have been taught nothing by the costly
strife Of the past, and they probably will
| die i'm ignorance, but there is one thing
which the people have thoroughly learned 4;
and that is the right of the United States
to assert their authority. To what class
of subjects their authority extends, what
are it, proper constitutional restrictions,
and what are the subjects which belong 10
the several StateS-this is one question.
Whether or not the United States, within
their jurisdiction, have right TO center Il
state" 20 enforce their laws, 10 enforce them
without asking permission of the several
states, i another question supposed TO have
been answered in the years lS6l-lS65, both
inclusive. We have no doubt that it will
be distinctly answered in whatever year il
l. L. - 4 80 L. Ii