The Northern Pacific farmer. [volume] (Wadena, Minn.) 1878-1885, 1880-09-16

civilization and attacks the Ku-Klux laws
and their execution he becomes thereby
the defender of ballot-box suffers. XII
Klux raiders. White-Line murders, and
the entire shotgun policy of the south. If
political leader in state which sent
10000 Union soldiers to the field can be
supported in teaching such doctrines,
doubts may be we'll entertained for the
safety of the republican institutions.
Senator Trumbull speaks of the election
laws by which, he says, the republican
party tried to perpetuate itself against the
will of the people. He fails to mention
one of the most important pieces of legis-
lation attempted by the democrats, which
was the attempted repeal of the statute en-
acted under Washington and amended
under Jefferson and Lincoln. By virtue
of this law the bayonet rule complained of
was authorized. The important provision
of the acts of 1892, 1875, and 1907, modi-
fed in terms from time to time to adapt
it to the existing emergency, remained in
force until by an act approved by Presi-
dent Lincoln, July 20, 1861, it was re-en-
acted substantially in the same language
in which it is now found in the Revised
Statutes, viz:
CES, QUO. w ucllCNC4s ny IcHSOn VI uu-
lawful distractions, combinations, or as
the authority of the government of the
United States, it shall become impracti-
cable, in the judgment of the president, to
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 to
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-
ton should not the national government
obstruction of the laws of the United
States, should not the executive have
power to enforce them? In case of unlaw-
full assemblages of persons and rebellion,
shall we not enforce the laws against them
by all the power of the government?
SENATOR TRUMBULL MAKES \ 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
plication, praising Buchanan's as honest
and economical. There was decided
difference in the two men and their adj
ministrations: Buchanan was in theory
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
he dispersed, our arms to be stolen, our
treasury to be robbed, before Abraham
Lincoln could be inaugurated. Our public
debt was increased from $9,9SS, 621.76 to
$50, 964, 402.Ol 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
$l70, 302, 1926 Is, the average expenditure
during Grants administration was great
er increase over the $65, 29l ,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 basis as
this for the time mentioned? Under Grant
was the extraordinary expense of recon-
structing the states recently in democrat
rebellion against the Government
IN HIS DEFENCE OF THE DEMOCRAT PLAT
the Judge says that part which pledges
the democracy anew to the constitutional
doctrines and traditions of the democratic
party as taught by a long line of states
men, means nothing more than return
from the centralized tendencies, the ex-
trayzagance, Profigacy, and corruption O.
mo rePablicanis% qo. He says it does
this question candidly and see ifJudge
Trumbull is correct. Did not their states
men of the South teach the doctrine that
state had a 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 a 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 a right to judge
for itself as we'll 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-