Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-04-03

ry board of Michigan. After debate, the
amendment to strike out was defeated. The
consideration of the bill having been concluded
with the exception of section 6, repeating the
statutes allowing the military to preserve peace
at the polls, that section was read. Upon this
there commenced long and interesting de-
bate, the Republicans insisting that the Sec
tion changed the existing laws and did not re-
trench expenditures The Democrats contend
ed, as one Of their. members argued, that the
power to make rules and regulations for the
army and navy was q fundamental power OF
Congress, and he had never heard that power
questioned. Mr.. Carlisle, of Kentucky, made
the leading arguments on the Democratic
side, insisting that troops should not be allow
ed at polls, and was argued with by Robson,
Frye and other Republicans.
In the House on the Goth, discussion of the
army appropriation bill was resumed, Mr.
Stephens, Of Georgia, having the floor. tie
argued in favor of the relevancy OF the Sec
tion prohibiting the use of troops at the polls,
but intimated his dissent from the theory that
the rules of one House governed succeeding
Houses unless re-adopted. There was no ques-
tion in his mind but that the pending section
was germane and was in the direction OF re-
trenching expenditures. Retrenchment was
not only possible and probable, but certain.
He discussed the laws of 1895 and 1907, and
argued that they did not apply to the use OF
troops in civil cases, but only in cases OF lnva-
sion and msurrection. In civil cases troops
were furnished on the call of a marshal as a
posse comitGt,ts, but such provision as author
lied the presence of troops at the polls never
existed on the statute book until 1865, and all
the change of legislation proposed by the sec
ton in question was the repeal of that law
Public sentiment, North and South, was
against the employment of troops at the polls
There was no need for such thing. The
country had got along without it for three
quarters of century. There would be no
harm done, therefore, by a repeal of the law.
Mr.. Stephens spoke for over twenty minutes,
in strong, clear voice, and attracted great
attention.
A general discussion was then opened by
Garfield. He made a very strong speech
against the policy of the Democratic party in
Congress, declaring it to be utterly reyolu-
tionary and tending to the subversion of the
Government. He showed how, by the absten-
tion of the majority in either house from the
performance of their legislative duties, the
government could be broken up, and declared
that this was the first time in American his
tory, and the first time in two centuries in
l,o4 hof or
upon that those voluntary powersshould be used
for the destruction of the government; and
yet that was the programme announced to the
American people to-day. II the pending
proposition was the simplest and most inof-
fensive, still, when it was demanded as mat
ter of coercion, it had to be resisted. 1t was
not against the proposition itself, but against
the Democratic methods that he spoke and
what was the law on the repeal of which the
Democrats now insist, at the very peril of
the national life 1t was law proposed by a
Democratic Senator, Powell, of Kentucky,
and reported against by Republican commit
tee, and passed in both houses, by majority
of Democratic votes, the majority of the Re-
publicans' votes being against it. He named
as voting for it Senators Hendricks, of In
diana, Davis, of Kentucky, Johnson, of Mary
land, Mcdowell, of California, and among
the Democratic Representatives, Randall, of
Pennsylvania, Wood, of New York. and Pen
dleton, of Ohio. The speech created great
excitement. After an argument by Reid, of
Maine, against the section and in support of
the point of order, the chairman made decis-
ion overruling the point of order and holding
that the section was germane and would re-
trench expenditureas,.An appeal was taken
and the decision was sustained-125 to 1O7.