The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1879-04-10

II WAS insisted upon in ;;n able aH
elaborate speech 10y him. II wis Il
ported against by a Republicans con
! IEittee in that body. Ii went thryUg
DAYS and weeks Of debate in tiIe Senate
and when It finally came 10 l8r ::ctei
upon in that body, this j. about ia
way the vote ran: Every Democrat il
the Senate voted for il, and every sen
atJr who voted against IL WAS = RePui
lic.u. No Democrat voted against i
but every Democratic Senator YOt
I ed for H. Who were they? Hen
dricES, Of Indiana, Mr.. Davis. o
Kentucky, Mr.. Johnson, Of Maryland
NJ. McDUug;tl, Of California, Mr.. Pow
ell, Of Kentucky, AIr. Richardson, .
Illinois, and Mr salisbury. Of Dri.
ware. There were fewer Republican
Senators who voted for It than ther
were who voted against it. ThiTteGI
! Republican Senators voted against j.
and only ten for il. The bill tllel
camc over to the House, and W;Is pu
! upon It's passage here. And how dit
the vote stand in this bOdyS Ever
Democrat in the House Of Reprcsen
tatives voted for it-SiXty of them
! The total number Of persons wht
I voted for il III the House WAS abOU
Il3, and Of that number a majority
were Democrats. The distinguish,
| Speaker Of the House, Samuel j. Ran
dali, voted for Il. The distin
! guished Chairman of the Commit
Tee of Ways and Means, FeTnand,
| Wood, voted for it, y distiH
| gl;ished member from Ohio, now {;
Senator from that State Mr.. Pendle
toni, voted for it. Every man of lead
ing name or fame in the Democratic
party who was then in the Congress o!
the United States voted for the bill
and not one against it. In this House
there were but few Republicans who
voted against it. l was one of the few
ThaddepS Stevens voted against Il
What was the object of the bill at that
time? It WAS this: 1t was alleged by
Democrats that, III those days OF war
there was Interference with elections
in the border States. There was nU
charge of any Interference in the
States where war did not exist. But
lest there might be some inlrIctiOn OF
the freedom of elections, q large Huia-
ber of Republicans in Congress were
unwilling to give amy appearances
whatever of interfering with the free
dom of elections, and voted against
this law as an expression of their pur-
pose that the army should not be i'm
properly used in AMI about any elec-
ton.
Mr.. Stephens-I wish to ask the
gentlemen if the country is likely 10
be reYOlutiOniZed and the government
destroyed 10y repeating law that the
a faR
on the Democratic side.
Mr. Garfield think not, sir. That
is not the element of revolution that
have been discussing. The PROPOSE
tiUn now is that fuuVtcen Yeas have
passed since the war. and not one petit
ton from any American citizen has
come TO US asking that the lazy DE re-
pealed; not one memorial has found
its way to our desks complaining of the
law, ani now the Democratic House
of Representatives hold that if they are
NOT permitted to force on another
house and the Executive, against their
will and against their consent, the re-
peal of a law that the Democrats made,
1t shall be sufficient ground for starry
ing this government. That is the pro-
position we are here debating.
Mr.. Wood Of New Y0rk-BefOre the
gentleman leaves that part of the dis
cusSiOn, desire TO ask him whether he
wishes to make the impression on
this House that the bill introduced by
Senator Powell, of Kentucky, which
resulted finally in the law of 1865, WAS
the bill that PASSED the Senate and the
House, which lac Stated the present
Speaker of the llOIse ANA myself vOt-
ed for?
Mr.. GARFIELn-I have not intimat-
ed that there were no amendmCnts-
there were amendments.
Mr.. WOOD want To correct the
impression. ! deny that so far rs am
personally concerned | ever voted for
the bill except rs substitute for 4
more perniciOuS and Objectionable
measure. ApplauSe on tho Demo-
cratic side.
Mr.. GARFIELD-All | say is a matter
of record. What | SAY Is thlt the GEN
tleqaH Yptod fOr ti.ai' law, and overy
Democrat IN the Senate ana III the
House who voted at all voted for it.
Mr.. WOOD-l want TO ask the gentle
man whether, in 1865, 1t the time Of
the passing of this law, the wIr had
really vet subSided-whether there
was not Il portion of this country in 4
condition where it WAS impossible To
exercise an elective franchise unless
there was some kind of military i'll
teTference; and whether, ut the eNpi-
ration of fourteen years after the war
has subsidized, that geI.tlG'Ha1 a get
prepared to continue Il war measure III
time of profound peace in the coun-
try?
Mr.. GARFIETD-I have n0 doubt
that the patriotic gentleman from
New York took all those things into
consideration when he voted for that
bill, and | may have been unpatri0tic
in voting against it, but he and | must
stand Oh our recOpd as Eiade up. Let 1t
be understood that have not at all en-
tered into the discussion of the merits
of the case. | am discussing method
of revolution against the Constitution
of the United States.
THE PEOPLE NOT COERCED IN 1860.
I Idesipe tn ask tic fnrbearahce OF the
gentlemen OH the other side for re-
marks that dislike to make, for they
will bear witness that / have i'll many
WAYS shown my desire that the wounds
of the war shall be healed, and that
the grass that God plants over the
graves OF our dead may signaliZe the
return of the spring of friendship and
peace between all parts the country.
But am compelled by the necessity
of the situation to refer for 4 moment
20 chapter Of history: The last act
of the ncmOcrdtic dO!4inatiOn in this
House eighteen years ago was stirring
and dramatic, but 1t was heroic and
high s0Uled. Then the Democratic
party said: "If you elect your man as
President of the United States we will
shoot your Union to death" And the
people of this country, not willing to
be cOerced, but believing they had 4
right To vote for Abraham Lincoln if
il they cnOse, did elect him lawfully as
President, and then your leaders, in
control of the majority of the other
wing of this Capitol, did tie heroic
thing of withdrawing from their seats
and flung down to us the g.lge of NOR
tai battle. We call it rebellion, but
we admitted that it was honorable,
that it was courageous, and that 1t
was noble to give us the fell gage OF
battle, and fight it out in the open
field. That conflict, and what follow
ed, We all know too well; and to-day,
after eighteen years, the book of your
domination is opened where you turn
ed down the leaves in 1860, and you
are signalling your return to power
by reading the second chapter mot
this time an heroic Onel that declares
that if we do not let you dash q stat
ute out of the book you will-nOt shoot
the Union to death as in the first chap
ter-but stlrYe it to death by refusing
the necessary appropriation APP
plauSe on the Republican side. You,
gentlemen have it in your power to
kill this movement. You have it in your
power, by Withholding these two bills,
to smite the nerve centers of our Con-
stitutiOn to the stiffness of death; and
you have declared your purpose to do
it if YOU can not break down the cle-
ments of free consent that, up to this
time, have always ruled in the govern
ment.
LESS HONORABLE THAN THE SECESSION
PLAN.
In 1876, IN Cincinnati, in the Nation
al Democratic Convention, and still
later, in 1860, the National Democracy
in the United States affirmed the right
of the veto rs one of the sacred rights
of our government, and declared that
any law which could not be passed
over veto by tWO-thirlS vote has nc
right to become a law, and that the on