Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-04-23


obeyed with as much allegiance in the south
as in the north.
Senator Allison, in the commencement of
his remarks, asked if it was possible they had
been sitting day after day and hour after
hour debating whether in a republic there
should be free and honest ballot. Was
there any party arrayed against principle so
we'll grounded. If there was such a
party it was not the Republican party.
The pending bill was proposedly
an appropriation bill, providing for the sup
port of the army from the first day of July
next for one year, and unless this bill should
pass before that day, then all uses of the
army must stop or go on without an appro-
priation. An army was necessary for the
protection of the frontier, and forts, and ar
senals, and for the protection as we'll of our
treasure and archives and other property
concentrated here. The army was as old as
the government itself. The Democratic
senators insisted that the sixty-sixth section
of the bill was put there for the purpose of
pending grievance which required to be re-
dressed now and here. He believed it was
the senator from Ohio FhurmaD who first
intlmated a redress of grievances. The
Democratic party had been In power in the
house since 1875, and he challenged contra
diction when he said that no petition from
any source had been presented asking for a
repeal or modification of the existing law,
nor had any such petition been presented in
the senate. This proposed redress of griev-
ances was suddenly discovered, and had
no foundation for action. There was no
necessity for encumbering the bill WITH new
legislation at this time. The Republicans
have majority of all the voters in the c)un-
try, and this would be everywhere apparent
if there were free ballots; and, therefore, it
was unfair to them to insist on such legisla-
ton; beside. it ought not to be done, as this
measure affected, or might affect, the enfran-
chlsed race; and, considering that among
the Democratic senators thirty-two are from
section more nearly affected by the four
teenth and fifteenth amendments of the con-
stltutlou, to force this legislation upon the
Appropriation bills was an unfair procedure,
especially in view of the fact that this ques-
ton has not been discussed upon the hus-
tings, and no protest has come here against
the use of the army; and it was still more
unfair because of the avowal that these sec
tons are placed in the bill as conditions of
the appropriation. Senator Allison believed
that it was revolutionary to force an amend
ment of the constitution without the ordinary
processes. The constitution says that bills
shall be passed by both houses, and receive
the signature of the President, in order to
become laws; yet 1t was now proposed to
make the President signature condition to
the appropriation OF money to defray gov
eminent expenses. General Jackson would
have been amazed at such presumption.
He read from President Jacks ons mes
sage to the senate in 1884, protesting
against a resolution passed by that body to
the effect that the President had acted out
side of his constitutional prerogatives, and
saying that If such interference with the in
dependence of the executive was allowed to
pass unnOtlCed and grow into a custom, it
would be as effective in destroying the liberty
of action in the Independent departments of
the government as if a constitutional amend
ment were adopted throwing into the hands
of the senate the power delegated to the
President. The realissue, Senator Allison con-
tInued, is whether the civil officers of the
United States shall be permitted to enforce
the laws by calling upon the military in case
of necessity. II troops had ever interfered
in elections, they had d one so in vol Ition of
law, and were liable to fine and imprlson-
nent for it. There was ample legal protec-
ton against undue interference. Continu-
ing, he showed that under Washington the
army had been authorized by congress to be
used to restore peace In Pennsylvania, and
under Jefferson to be used as militia in GER
tain States, and such had been practiced since.
10 conclusion, Mr.. Allison sal there must
be laws securing to the people fair repre-
sentation, and they would not consent to any
infringement of their rights by the over
riding of one department of government by
any other department
After an executive session adjourned.
IN THE HOUSE.
The reading of the journal was dispensed
with, and consideration resumed of the sub
sidiary silver coin bill. After brief state
ment by Mr.. Chittenden, favoring the bill,
voting on the amendments began.
An amendment was offered by Mr.. Gillette
for the redemption of the subsidiary silver
coins in paper fractional currency of ten,
twenty-five and City cents, which currency
elon 10 a Il 10 &c 49,.
dollars.
Mr.. Stephens, who has charge of the bill,
! said he was in favor of the amendment, and
| that the subject was before the committee on
coinage, but he did not want this bill en-
cum bered with it.
| Upon this representation Mr. Gillette with
| drew the amendment, and the amendment
| of MIR. Newberry, requiring small coins of
one and three cents, etc., tc be received at
postotices for postage stamps, in sums not
exceeding three dollars, was, after discus
| sion, agreed 80.
The bill finally passed. 1t provides that
silver coins OF a smaller denomination than
one dollar may be exchangeable into lawful
| money when presented IN sums OF twenty
| dollars; makes lawful money exchangeable
into silver coins IN a like amount; makes
| subsidiary silver coins a legal-tender for all
debts, public and private, In sums not ex-
ceedlng twenty dollars, and makes minor
c1inage receivable at postoffices to the amount
of three dollars.
Mr.. Knott, from the Judiciary committee,
made report on the question OF the subpoena
duceS tecHm served on the file clerk of the
| house to produce certain original papers be-
! fore the Stanley court nartial sitting In New
York. The report concluded with resolu-
ton prohibiting the removal of the original
papers, but granting the consent of the house
to either party to have made properly proven
copies of the papers mentioned In the SUBJ
pena.
The report and the resolution were both
agreed to.
The house then went into committee on
the legislative appropriation bill.
MIR. Bailey characterized the repeal as ar
infamous usurpation of power on the part Of
the democratic party. 1t was not asked fol
by the people or by the country, but by the
Democratic leaders. He predicted that the
Republicans would march to political victory
IN 1880. with Grant as their leader.
Mr.. Covert, in the course of speech on the
Democratic side of the question, confined
himself principally to recital of what he
characterized as high-handed outrages, per
perpetrated In New York under color of the
infamous Fedora. election laws.
MIR. 4 eddes, referring to the consideration
of the Presidential Veto said he would no
call In question the Presidential title, bu
that he would never forgive nor forget thl
| HiOnS ny WHICH hayes DdQ MS SSaJS
and he had sworn on his countrys altar neve
to cease his efforts, never to lay down thu
legal. peaceful, constitutional weapon of war
fare until the crime by which the present in
cumbent held his Office was condemned at
free election, and the choice Ct the peopl
inaugurated.
Mr.. Bayne alleged there were three con
splcuous objections to the pending legisla
ton. The first was, that it was framed L
coerce the President In repeating or modify
ing the Federal election law, under penalt
OF refusing the necessary supplies to the gov
eminent. This was usurpation on the pan
of the majority in the two houses. The sec
ond objection was, that the proposed legisa
) ton was supported on the ground that til
, government had not the constitutional RICH
to supervise and regulate the election c
members of congress unless the States wer
in default. This would be putting danger
. GUS if not fatal Interpretation on the const
7 tuition. The third objection was, that tn