Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1880-09-16

SSLHbIdSSS OF persons, or feDeIIIOn against
the authority of the government of the
United States, it shall become impracti
| cable, in the judgment of the president, tC
enforce, by the ordinary course of Judicial
proceedings, the laws of the United States
within any state or territory, it shall be
lawful for the president TO call forth the
militia of any or all the states, and to EN-.
ploy such parts of the land and naval
forces of the United States as he may deem
necessary to enforce the faithful execution
of the laws of the United States, or tC
suppress such rebellion in whatever state
or territory thereof the laws of the Unit
ed States may be forcibly opposed or the
execution thereof forcibly obstructed"
WHY SHOULD THE DEMOCRACY UNDERTAKE
to repeal this law? If there is insurrec-
tion should not the national government
have power to put it down? In case of
obstruction of the laws of the United
States, should not the executive have
power to enforce them? In case of un-law
full assemblages of persons and rebellion,
shall we not enforce the laws against them
by all the power of the government?
SENATOR TRUMBULL MAKES A COMPARISON
between the administration of James
Buchanan and that of the first six years of
Gen. Grant, charging Grants with ex-
travagance and corruption, and, by i'm
phcatiOn, pTaisIng Buchanan's as honest
and economical. There was decided
difference in the two men and their ad-
minlStratiOns: Buchanan was in theory a
.secessionists and practically in conspiracy
with the South. Gen. Grant was loyal in
word and deed. Buchanan said in his
last message that there was no power in
the government TO cOerce a state. Grant
did under the orders of President Lincoln
cOerce eleven states, and unfurled the flag
once more over all of them. Will Sena-
tor Trumbull compare the tratorOus ad-
ministration OF James Buchanan with that
of any republican since? Has he not often
times denounced Buchanan for allowing
our armies to be disbanded, our navy to
be dispersed, our arms to be stolen, our
treasury to be robbed, before Abraham
Lincoln could be inaugurated. Our public
debt was increased from S9,9SS,621.76 to
500, ,964 ,402 .0l for no reason but to furnish
the robbers of our government support in
their treason. Senator Trumbull here
employs sophistry by trying to show that
S170, ,302, ,325. .15, the average expenditure
during Grants administration was a great
er increase over the S65, ,291 ,452. 40 expend-
ed under Buchanan than the increase of
population would warrant That may be
true, placing it on such basis. But will
any fair-minded man take such a basis as
this for the time mentioned? Under Grant
was the extraordinary expense of recon-
structing the states recently in a democrat
rebellion against the Government
IN HIS DEFENCE OF THE DEMOCRAT PLAT
FORM
the Judge says that part which pledges
the democracy anew to the constitutional
doctrines and traditions of the democratic
party as taught by long line of states
men, "means nothing more than a return
from the centralized tendencies, the ex-
travagance, profigacy, and corruption o'
modern republicanism." He says it does
not mean secession, because that was not
constitutional doctrine" Let us examine
this question candidly and see fudge
Trumbull is correct. Did not their states
men of the South teach the doctrine that
a state had right to judge for itself as to
the constitutionality of an act of congress,
without reference to the supreme court of
the United States? And did not South
Carolina, on this theory of state-rights,
nullify the laws of congress and attempt to
set up for itself? Is it not true that this
was maintained by the democrats as a
proper construction of the constitutional
rights of the people of state? And it is
as true that this became the doctrine of the
democracy everywhere, as | have shown,
by the incorporation of the resolutions of
1879 in their platform, in which it is
claimed that state has right to Judge
for itself as well of infractions as of the
modes Of redress" In the case of South
Carolina they did claim to Judge of the in
fractions of the constitution, and did at
tempt TO redress the wrong complained Of
1t was also claimed that the constitution,
by its own force, carried slavery into a
territory. Was that not one of the con-
stitutional doctrines of the democratic
party? And did not Judge Trumbull
leave that party on account of this con-
struction of constitution? When the
democracy of eleven Southern states
seeded, did they not claim that this gov
ernment was a mere compact, and that
under a proper construction of the con-
stitution they had a right to do so, and
that the government had no right to
coerce them back into the union? VIII
Senator TrumbUll deny that this was one
of their doctrines as to the constructions of
the constitution, and therefore with the
democracy a constitutional doctrine? And
does not their platform indorse this by
pledging anew to their doctrines and
GENERALIZATION.
Senator Trumbull speaks of the tendency
ha hi rty to nf1-ot tIz4 ion