Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1879-04-11
GENERAL GARF1ELD's SPEECH.


his speech by referring to the gravity and
solcmnity of the crisis that had now been
brought upon the country, aud declared that
the House had, to-day, resolved to enter
upun revolution against the Constitution
and Government aid that the ctlnscuucrccs
OF that resolve, If persisted in, meant nothing
short OF subverslOn of the Government. He
sketched the point at issue between the two
Houses at the close of the last Congress, and
from report of one OF the Senate cOufcrees
to the effett that the Democratic confcrees
on the part Of the House were determined
unless the action of the House was concurred
in, to refuse making appropriations TO carry
on the Government, and he also quoted from
the speech of Senator Beck (another OF the
cOnferees) to the effect that the Democrats
claimed the right which the House of Com
mons In England had established, after two
centuries Of conquest, to say they would
not grant the money OF the people unless
there wits a redress ~ grievances These
propositions, continued Mr.. Garfield, in tari
Gus forms, more or less vehemently, were re-
peated in the last House, and with that situa-
tiOn OF affairs the session came near It's close.
The Republican majority in the Senate and
the Republican minority in the House ex-
press the deepest possible sOCitude to avoid
the catastrophe here threatened. They eN-
pressed their strongest desire to avoid the
danger to the country and to It's business Of
an extra session of Congress, and they ex-
pressed their willingness to let gu what they
considered the least important Of the nrdpdsi-
tiOns-nOt as matter of coercion, at all--but
as matter Of fair adjustment and compro-
mise, if they could be met in the spirit of adj
justment on the other side. Unfortunately
no spirit of adjustment appeared on the other
side tn meet their advances. And now the
new Congress is assembled and after ten days
of deliberation the House OF Representatives
has resolved substantially to reaflirm the
propositions of its predecessor, and on these
ion xtTna arn pnp fn- ia IN
time to enter into all this case. | am not
prepared for 1t myself. But | shall cunfne
myself to the one phase of the issue presented
in this bill.
Mr.. Atkins, (Dem.) of Tennessee, asked
Mr.. Garfield whether he understood him to
state that there had been no proposition to
compromise made in the Conference Com
mttee.
Mr.. Garfield replied that he did not under
take to state what had been said In the Con
ference Committee, for he had not been a
member of the Conference. He had been only
stating what had been stated on the floor Of
the House aud of the Senate,
Mr.. AttinB-Then | state that PROPOSE
tiou was made in the Conference Committee
the same as the proposition now before the
House, and which is proposed to be attached
to this bill.
Mr.. Garfield take it for granted that
what my friend says is strictly true. / know
nothing to the contrary The question may
be asked why we make any special resistance
to propositions which great many gentlemen
have declared are to be considered Of no i'm
pOrtance So far az this side is concerned
desire to say this. We recognize you, gentle
men of the other side, as sRilful parlamenta-
rians and skillful stratagsts you have chosen
wisely and adroitly your line of assault
you have put forward perhaps the least OBJ
iectiOnabe of your measures, but we meet
that as one part of your programme. We
reply to it as an order of battle, and we are
as much compelled by the logic of the situa-
tion to meet you on the skirmish line as we
would be if you were attacking the intrench-
mcnts themselves. And, therefore, on the
threshold, we desire to plant our case on the
general grounds on which we choose TO de-
fend it.
Mr.. Garfield then went on to refer to what
he had stated on the last day of the last Con
gress, as to the division of the Government
into three parts-the Nation, the Senate and
the People; and he said that, looking at the
IT, il might be said to be the feeblest Govern
ment on ho oartlI, while looking at it az
American citizens did it was the mightiest
Government. A foreigner could point out a
dozen ways in which the Government could
be killed, and that not by violence. OF course
all Governments might be overturned by the
sword. But there were some ways by which
this Government might be utterly annihilated
without the firing of gun. The people
might say that they would not elect repre-
sentatives. That, of course, was a violent
suppositOn, but there was no possible rem
edy for such a condition of things, and with
out a House of Representatives there could
be no support of a Government, and, cOnse-
quently, there could be no Government; SO
the States might say to their Legislatures
that they would not elect Senators The
very abstention from electing Senators would
absolutely destroy the Government, and there
would be no process of compulsion. Or
suppOsing that the two Houses were Assem-,
bled in their usual order, and that a bare ma.
iOrity of one in either House should firmly
bind itself together and say that it would vote
to adjourn at the moment of meeting each
day, and would do that for two years in sue
cession-in that case what would happen anG
what would be the measure of redress! The
| Government would die. There could not bC
| found in the whole range of judicial or exec
| uIive authority any remedy whntnUar- The
| power of member or the House to vote wa
| free and he might vote mo " on every propO
| sition of that kind. 1t was not so with thu
! Executive. The Executive had no power t,
destroy the Government. Let the Executive
travel but one inch beyond the line of Law
and there was the power of impeachment
But If the electors among the people wh'
| elected Representatives, or il the electors il
| the State Legislatures who created Senators
| or If Senators and Representatives themselye
abstain from the performance of their duty
| there was no remedy.
At a first view it might seem remarkable
he said, that body of wise meu like thos
who framed the Constitution should hay
| left the whole side of the fabric of Govern
ment open to those deadly assaults, but ol
another view of the case they were wise
What was their reliance! 1t was on tn
sovereignty of the Nation, on the crowne,
and annointed sovereignty TO whom all Am9r
lean citizens owed their allegiance. That SOW
ereign was the body of the people of TIL
United States inspired by their love of cOuu
try and their sense of obligation to publi
duty. AS the o-iginators of the forces tina
were sent to Congress to do their work the
had no need of any cOercive authority to b
laid on them to compel them to do their man
ifest duty. Public opinion, the level OF tina
mighty ocean from which all heights and al
depths were measured, was deemed q suiii
cient measure to guard that side Of the Con
stitutiOn and those approaches to the life OF
Nation, absolutely from all danger, all harm
Up to this hour Che said) our sovereign ha
never failed us. There has never been sue
abstentiOn from the exercise of those primar
functions of sovereignty, as either to crippl
or endanger the Government, and now, fO
the first time in our history, and will say IA
the first time in at least two centuries in th
history of English speaking people, has
been proposed, or at lest insisted upon, tina
these voluntary powers shall be used for tn
destruction of the Government. | want
unueIsloOl bldb buC plOpoSlJloH MulCu
have read, and which is the programm
announced to the American people to day
is, this day, that If we cannot have our wa
in certain manner, we will destroy the Gov
ernment of this country by using the vOluI
tary power not of the people, but of ou
selves, against the Government to destroy 1
What is our theory of law! 1t is free COZ
sent. That is the granite foundation of OF
whole structure. Nothing in this Republ
can be a law that has not free consent of I'll
House, the free consent of the Senate and tf
free consent of the Executive. Or if the H.
ecutive refuses his free consent, then ii mu
have the free consent of two-thirds of eaC
body. VIII anybody deny thstl Win an
body challenge a line of that statement--th
free consent is the foundation rock of all OF
institutions.
And yet the programme announced tV
weeks ago was, that If the Senate refused
consent TO the demand of the House the Go
ernment should stop. The proposition vi
then, and the programme is now, that q
though there is not a Senate to veto it, the
is still third independent factor in the legi
latiye power OF the Government which is
becoerced at the peril of the destruction
the Government. 1t makes no difference VIII