The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1879-04-03
WORDS THAT BURN.
Garfeld's Great Speech in
the House Of Repre-
sentatiVes,
A Scathing DenunciatiOn OF the
Democratic Revolutionary
Programme.

speech by referring to the gravity and solemn
ty OF the crisis that had now been brought upon
the country, and declared that the House had
to-day resolved to enter upon a revolution
against the constitution and the Government,
and that the consequence of the resolve, if per-
sisted in, meant nothing short of subversion of
the Government He sketched the point at
issue between the two houses at the close of
the last Congress, and read from report of
one Of the Senate conferees to the effect that
the Democratic conferees on the part of the
House were determined, unless the action of the
House was concurred in, to refuse making APP
preparations 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 Commons in England had established after
two centuries Of contest, to say they would not
grant the money of the people unless there
was redress of grievances These PROPOSE
tons, continued Mr.. Garfield, in various forms.
more or less vehemently, were repeated in
the last House, and with that situation of
affairs the session came near it's close The
Republican majority in the Senate and the
Republican minority in the House expressed
the deepest possible solicitude to avoid the
catastrophe here threatened. They expressed
their strongest desire to avoid the danger to the
country and to It's business of an extra session
of Congress, and they expressed their willing
ness to let 60 what they considered the leastim
pOrtant Of the prOpositions-not as matter of
coercion at all, but as q matter of fair adjust
ment and compromise, if they could be met in
the spirit Of adjustment on the other side I'm
fortunately, no spirit of adjustment appeared
on GI6 "a 70 4hnfro Ixyo,, Al
now the new Congress is assembled, and, after
ten days OF elaboration, the House of Repre-
sentatlves has resolved substantially to reaffirm
the propositions of its predecessor and on these
propositions we are met to- day. This is no
time to enter into all this case. I am not pre-
pared for it myself. But shall confine myself
to the one phase Of the issue presented in this
bill.
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 Importance. So far as this
side is concerned, I desire to say this: We rec
ognize you, gentlemen of the other side as
skillful parliamentarians and skillful strate-
gists; you have chosen wisely and adroitly your
line of assault; you have put forward perhaps,
the least Objectionable 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-
would be If you were attacking the intrench-
ments 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 or the last Congress,
as to the division of the Government into three
parts, the nation, the Senate, and the people;
and he held that looking at the Government as
a fQralCn1r rrp iorbt ho
to be the feeblest Government on the earth,
while, looking at it as American citizens did, it
was the mightiest Government foreigner
could point out dozen ways in which the Gov
eminent could be killed, and that not by vio-
lence 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 a. gun. The people might say that they
would not elect Representatives. That. of
course, was violent supposition, but
there was no possible remedy for such condi-
ton OF things, and, without House of Repre-
sentatives, there could be no support of
Government, and, consequently, there could be
I no Government. So the States might say
through 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, suppos,,
in their usual order, and that a bare
majority 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 success
sion-in that case what would happen, and
what would be the measure of redress? The
Government would die. There could not be
found in the whole range of judicial or execu-.
tive authority any remedy whatever. The
power of a member of the House to vote was
free, and he might vote "No" on every propo-
sition Of that kind. 1t was not so with the Ex-
ecutive. The Executive had no power to de-
stroy 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 who elected
Representatives, or if the electors in the State
Legislatures who created Senators, or if Sen
ators and Representatives themselves abstain
from the performance Of their duty, there was
no remedy. A., s~s
At a first view it might seem remarkable he
said, that body Of wise men like those who
framed the constitution should have left the
whole side of the fabric of Government open
to those deadly assaults, but, on another view
of the case, they were wise What was their
reliance? 1t was on the sovereignty Of the
nation, on the crowned and anointed sovereign
to whom all American citizens owed their
allegiance That sovereign was the body of the
love of country and their sense of obligation to
public duty. AS the originators of the forces
that were sent to Congress to do their work,
they had no need of any coercive authority to
be laid on them to compel them to do their
manifest duty. Public opinion, the level of that
mighty ocean from which all heights and all
/ depths were measured, was deemed asuficient
| measure to guard that side of the constitution,
and those approaches to the life of the nation,
absolutely from all danger, all harm. Up to
| this hour Che said) our sovereign has never
| failed us. There has never been such Austen
ton from the exercise of those primary func-
tons Of sovereignty as either 70 cripple or en-
danger the Government. And now, for the
first time in our history, and I will say for the
first time in least two centuries in the history
| of English-speaking people, has it been pro-
| posed, or at least insisted upon, that these
| voluntary powers shall be used for the
destruction Of the Government. Il want
| it understood that the proposition which I have
read, and which is the programme announced
to the American people to-day, is this day, that,
if we cannot have our way ina certain manner,
| we will destroy the Government Of this coun-
try by using the voluntary power, not of the
people, but of ourselves, against the Govern
ment to destroy it.. What is, our theory of law
/ It ia free consent That is the granite founda-