Daily Republican., 1879-04-03
THE CONTEXT AT wA6HIN GTON.

A6O6n oUsOuo S0hupssS ssS"" So
At Washington yesterday the debate
Was resumed sA ths Army appropris-
ton bill, ~. ..Spyip ssr ,inthe' CHAIR =
MI. Williams, Of Wisconsin, said that
under whatever jurisdiction, whether
State or national, an election took
place, two things were absolutely in
despsnsable-purity at the ballot box
and peace at the polls. Every effort
to secure those two things must be
made, or representative government
was at an end. He had heard good
deal of nonsensical talk about bayenet
rule in this country. He had read Of
no gover nment in history which did not
rest ultimately for its psrmanence and
authority upon the bayonet. Whoever
talked about such government talked
about Utopia.
He knew Of no bayonet rule in this
country except that which had put
down one Of the post wicked and cruel
r-belions that had ever disgraced the
earth, or which had denied his South.
ern friends the dslectable pastime Of
shooting negroes. Ever since 1874 the
Republican party had been tripping
over chip, because then, for the first
time, that party had begun to ac-
auiesCe in the non-enforcement of the
laws Of the country. lle contended
that there was no place where the
President had not the righ. to send
troops, whether to the polls or to the
Church of Christ. lie admitted that it
would not bs a pleasant sight to Zee
voters mass at the polls within lines OF
bayonets, but neither was it pleasant
to see voters assaulted by roughs with
bowie knives and revolvers. He
differed from the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Garheld) in his opinion that the
attempt to forbid the presence OF troops
at tho polls was fight on the skirmish
linz.
He (Mr. Williams) regarded it as the
centre of the whole question, BECAUSE
upon it depended the whole question
OF Federal authority and national per
petuity. The statute which it was pro-
posed to repeal had been passed in 1868 I,
| ~ d lItllf ljfll tHF VI Woo to''Na1
and when 1t was but question of tim.
when the brave boys OF the North
should come marching home again
home it is true, to land filled with
mourning, and with broken and bleed
ing hparts, hut to land devoted to
liberty and dedicated to law. That law
remains on the statute books, and
there, under God, so far as the R-pub-
lican party was concerned, it should re-
main forever.
Mr.. Townsherd, Of Illinois, proceeded
to reply to the charge made on Satnr-
day by Mr.. Garfield, that the Demo-
cratic party was attempting 10 starv-
the Government to death. He argued
that if the Government were starved to
death the responsibility would rest sn
the Republican party. The House had
under consider alton a bill appropra-
ting twenty-six millions of dollars for
the support of the army. That bill
would pass the Democratic Hou'e and
Senate. "hen, if those bills failed,
where would the responsibility lie
/ ii lnt TTbSlufHt VSt''u tH' p'i' ~ "'a'"
not be on account Of the metho, by
which the Democrats sought to repeal
some sections Of the statutes.
If the gentleman from ONO wanted
to find r.volutionists he would have to
look over the record of Joshua Gid
dings, his predecessor in thls House.
He would have to look into the Coun-
Gil Chamber of the President and 50
lpct John Sherman, the revolutioni,t
of 1867, when general legislation had
been placed upon the Civil Service
APPROPRIATION bill. When that gentle
man talked about revolutioHists his
malsdiction would fall on the
heads of Wilson aud Sumner and
other Republica. leaders in the Senate
in 1867. To come down tolater pre-
eed4ntF, he (Mr. Townhsend) found that
in 1872, the very laws which it was
proposed to repeal had been passed on
an appropriation bill, and then the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GarfeId)
Lad arrogantly stated that it was rev
olutionary for the minority to oppose
| Nv " III VI tllS
lie Crownhsend) called attention to
the fact that in the election in Chicago
yesterday, the question of tho repeal
Of this law had been made an issue,
and for the first time in thirty years a
Democrat had been elected Mayor Of
: Chicago on this revol ntionary issue.
Mr.. Weaver, of lndiana--lle was a
greeub back man.
Mr.. Buckner, of Missouri, spoke in
: the Same vein, and denied that it was
revolutionary for the Democrats to re-
peal laws by the same method in which
they had been enacted. The charge
made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
GarGeld) that tire Democracy was about
to rp-enact the scenes Of 1851 lie char.
acterizcl a. political clap trap. There
. was no basis for the hue and cry OF
revolution. He deprecated the attempt
which the gentleman from Ohio had
made to coerce the President into a
veto.
Mr.. White, of Pennsylvania, said
that he knew nothing about what would
occur if the bill should pass in its pre-
eut shape. He had not the confden-
tial ear Of the Executive, and did not
know whether il would be vetoed or
not. but that the President had the
constitutional right to veto it nobody
could question. He gave history OF
the passing of the act which it was now
proposed to repeal, and called atten-
ton to the fact that Senator Powell, ei
kentucky, voted for the bill. lie de-
MED that his side of the House was in
favor Of force at the polls. 1t only de-
sired that the citizen should be protec-