The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1879-08-07

how, in the South, justice had been
made farce that jurors were drawn !
in the interests of partisanship, and
that cases were decided in the inter-
ests of partisanship,aud that the courts
had absolutely failed to administer |
justice TO the people of that great Sec
ton. We referred to the city of New
Y Ork, where on an election day, more
than five thousand American citizens
were imprisoned by the authority of
Supervisors of elections. and after
wards discharged by a Judge Of the
United States Court, who decided
there was no authority to arrest, aud
that they had been guilty of no crime.
More than that, we referred in our
argument to the great doctrine of civ
il liberty, and maintained that the
measures we sought to repeal we're
inimical to freedom, un-American in
spirit, and in the end would prove
subYersive of free government.
No more manly, no more dignified,
no more logical debate, so far as the
Democratic side Of this House is con-
cerned, was ever conducted on this
floor; but in what way we're our ar
guments treated by gentlemen on the
other side of the House? With the
exception OF half a dozen speeches, the
pretended answers 10 our arguments
might as we'll have been made upon
any other subject as upon the bill now
before the House for consideration.
When we said that these measures
were violative of the Constitution OF
the United States, Republican orators
replied that on this side of the House
the majority were Confederate briga-
diers, who had attempted to over
throw the Constitution of the United
States. When we referred to the fact
of the outrages committed on Ameri-
can citizens, they replied by citing the
outrages committed in Jacksonville
and other prisons during the war, aud
we urged that the power of the army
should be so limited and qualified
that it might not be used to overthrow
the the liberties of the people, they
said your side was whipped by that
army, and, therefore yoa are opposed
to it.
Never in all my knowledge has
debate been so honestly conducted as
this has been upon our side of the
house never have arguments been
more unfairly met than have our ar
guments by gentlemen on the other
side. There are honorable exceptions,
of course. 1t would be lnvidious to
name them, but will venture to
mention the names of two, and refer
to the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr.. Hawley, and the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr..
Robeson. AS result of this debate,
bills have been passed and sent to the
President Of the United States and
have been vetoed. The veto power
was designed by the Constitution as a
power to prevent unconstitutional
legislation, or hasty, ill-considered
legislation, or to enable the Executive
to protect itself against encroachments
from other branches of the Govern
ment. defy any gentleman to point
me to any argument in the debate up.
on the adoption of the Constitution
which did not give in favor Of this
provision one or the other of these
reasons; and in the history of this
Government, from the day of it's .foun-
dation until now, the veto power was
never before exercised to prevent the
repeal of law, or to prevent the en-
actment of q general appropriation
bill. Certainly, never before was the
veto power exercised to practically
take away from one of the two houses
of Congress q power which is confer
red upon it separately by the provis-
ions of the Constitution itself. The
power to originate bills of revenue is
q power which belongs to Us, and it is
q power which, if the President inter-
feres with it as he has done by this
veto in this case, he can absolutely
take away from us.
What reasons have been urged for
these extraordinary vetoes? Chiefly
that the bills we sought to pass took
away from the Executive authority
the power to enforce the law. Be-
cause we would not let him use the
army on election day to keep the
peace at the polls, he said we took
away from him the power to enforce
the laws.
Sir, the army is the creature of Con-
gress. The Constitution declares that
the Congress may raise an army. The
Constitution declares that appropria-
tions for the army shall not last lon-
ger than two years. The Constitution
declares that Congress may make
IuA0S 0uu AVA S0C S0VOA IL
ment of the army; rules and regula-
tions" afterward. Therefore the army
is absolutely the creature of Congress.
Whether it shall be used to execute
the laws or not is for Congress to say
and not for the President. Applause
on the Democratic side. He must
take the army as we give it to him,
for the purpose which we declare 1t
shall be used for, we being the power
to create it.
Strange to say the President and
his advisors, and the gentlemen on the
other side of the House, seem to- have
lost sight of the Constitutional pro
vision which gives the President the
power to execute the laws. The Ian
guage of that instrument is that the
President of the United States may
call upon the militia of the several
States to execute the laws. This is
the power given to him for the execu-
ton of the laws; not the army, unless
Congress says so, but the militia of
the States, because the Constitution SO
provides.
Never for an instant did our bills
interfere with the power of the Presi-
dent over the militia OF the States, but
only over this army, this creature of
ours. The President has the militia
OF the States, from one end of the
United States to the other, to aid him
in executing the laws on election day
or at any other time, at the polls or
anywhere else.
What is the result now after the ve-
toes? Some gentlemen have said that
the Democratic party has backed
down, has surrendered. Sir, when
we entered upon this fight we did not
expect to gain the victory in day.
When power has for twenty years
been entreuched behind all possible
legislation, we cannot dislodge il in