The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1879-04-10

Greenback party want the test oath for Jurors;
did the National Greenback party want any Mar
shals at elections unless the history of elections
after the experiment should have been tried, would
prove that the country could not get on without
them. But he had not the least doubt of
the constitutional power of the Government to pro-
tect citizens at the polls. 1t only question
of policy and necessity to the Supervisors that
feature ought to be retained in the law with
modification, and they should be chosen not from
the two parties. but from the parties having Con-
gressional tickets in the field. That would give
the Greenback party chance. Mr.. De
La Matyr (Greenbackerl, of Indiana, ex-
pressed his intention to vote for the bill as 1t
Stood He thought the House had better show
some desire to relieve the people instead of giving
themselves wholly to wrangle over the firing upon
Sumter, the returning to slavery of Burns the
tons and recrimnatons. Mr.. Jones Green
backer), of Texas, opposed the placing of
poll 6cal legislation an appropriation bill.
Mr.. Wright tGreenbacker), OF pennsylvania, con-
war, and predicted defeat Gin 1SS0 for the party
that raised them. Mr.. Hawley (Republicanl. Of
Connecticut followed denouncing the purpose of
the majority which would leave the Government
to be carried on by the voluntary service of its
officers or by voluntary subscriptions such flowed
into the treasury in 1860. It was threatened by
gentlemen of that jority' that if the President
should veto the bill they would Apply the thumb
screws TO the minority in order to obtain two
thirds majority, and failing in that, the appropri-
alton should fail. To that programme the minor
ity would invariably vote nay to the end of the
chapter. It was not now question of the merit
of the statutes. but of methods, and the Demo-
cratic method was dangerous, reprehensible, and
to be opposed. Mr.. Tucker Democrat, of
Virginia, spoke at length upon tho legal
questions involved and then in allusion to state
ments from gentlemen on the other side that they
would yield, said he would tell them that, in
the conflict between power and liberty. If power
would not yield liberty was Just as firm. Mr.. Gar
field, of Ohio, closed the debate for the Repub-
licans. He expressed his willingness to help the
Democrats wipe from the statute-book the
law authorizing the use OF the army at
be introduced in the regular manner
Mr.. New offered an amendment providing that
nothing in the section shall he construed abridg
ing affecting the duty or power of the President
under the constitution to send troops on applica-
zion of the Legislature or Executive or State Mr.
Baker, of Indiana, offered an amendment to the
amendment, making it unlawful for any to
have on his person firearms, bowieknives clubs
or bludgeons in the vicinity of place where an
election is being held.
Consideration of the Army bill was resumed
in the House on the 9Th Mr.. Sparks Democrat
of Illinois, spoke in favor of the repeal Of the law
permitting the use of troops at the polls. The is
sue, he said, whether or not in this country
this free country, this great republic, the armed
soldiers, the paid servants of the sovereign people
to come to the polls to drive the sovereign
people away. That was the issue. Gentlemen
(Mr. Sparks said, addressing the Republican side)
you make the issue; we go to the coun-
try upon it; we mean to stand upon it.
know this sovereign power that stands be-
hind us, stands behind you and to it the President
aud Governors and congress must ali yleid, and
the sovereign people we know are with US. Mr.
Chittenden followed, and said When you repeal
these laws you disfranchise not only the weak and
ignorant in every part of this country, but i'll all
the large cities you d;sfranchise men who have
nrf fha tn ent thn md
bulldozers and blackegs at the polls. The
amendment offered by Mr.. New. that repeal shall
not abritge or affect the right and DUTY Of the
Executive to respond to call OF a State Legisla
ture or Governor was agreed to-S5 to 4. The Re-
publicans did not. VOTE Mr.. Lowe moved to
strike out section &. Mr. Conger sug
gested that if that were dofe his side would
aid in passing immediately, without de-
bate, separate bill repeating entirely the
so-called Objectionable section of the statutes.
Mr.. Mcmahon said in 1865 the party which rep
resented by his friend from Michigan had claimed
almost unlimited power with the troops. The law
not only denied that unlimited power, but put the
seal of crime on the officers who violated it, and he
wanted to keep that law there and for that reason
speaking for himself alone, repudlated the propo-
sition. Discussion followed, i'll which MeSSrs
Haskell, Cox, Conger and Price participated
MIR. Cannon moved to strike out the word
ciyll" where 1t occurs in tile sixth section, and
spoke in favor of the proposition. Rejected-12I
to 1877. Mr.. Brewer submitted an amendment pro
vidiEg that nothing contained in the bill shall in
any way limit the right or power of civil officers
of the Government to keep peace at the polls such
times prescribed for tue election of men,
bers of Congress. Rejected-yeas, III; nays, 1856.
Mr.. Conger moved AS a substitute for section 6
the following: "That sections 2,002 and 552S of
the Revised Statutes be and the same are hereby
repealed" Rejected--yeas, 109; nays, 1876. Mr..
CaswelI moved to strike out the portion of the
ton providing for penalties. Rejected. The ques-
ton required on the motion of Mr.. Lowe to strike
outthe whole fsection6 Rejected-yeas, 1922; nays.
l35 The committee ana reported the bill which
then passed-yeas, las: nays, 122-a strict party
vote. The Greenbackers voted as follows: Afhrma~
tve-De La Matyr, Ford, Gillette, Jones, Laid,
Lowe, March, Stevenson, Weaver, and Yokum.
Negaive-Barlow and Forsythe.