Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-06-12

nulling, instead of improving the election
laws. Mr.. Kiefer was interrupted to ALLOW
the Senate amendments to the civil sundry
bill to be non -concurred in, and conference
committee consisting of Blount, Clymer ani
Monroe was appointed thereon.
Mr.. Hawley arraigned the Democratic
party for failure to pass any needful meas
ures, declaring it divided on all great live
issues, and predicting its defeat at the com
ing election.
Mr.. Hswley said the bill was intended tc
be in the direction of mutiIating and ham.
pering existing statutes. 1t was said that
the proposition in the bill had been suggested
by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Garield.) In the abounding good nature
of his magnificent heart that gentleman had
suggested something one day on which the
Democratic party had built this bill. That
party had run for it largely, hoping that it
might thus escape the issue. Even sugges-
ton had been an error of policy from the
grand heart of that man, because the respon-
sibllity had been on the other side.
Mr.. Williams, of Wisconsin, said that the
life of the nation and hope of its pros
perity was the purity of the ballot-box. The
election laws had been enacted when the
|
the North and force in the South, and when
the question had been whether the govern
ment shonld yield to fraud or surrender to a
mob or enact some preventative law. The
provision that "twin special deputies should
be appointed simply meant that riot should
be organized and commanders given to
each side. 1t was not for him to lecture the
House or to counsel, but in the name of
| c.. &c s-otfn nf fhot
which every one professed that this
government of the people by the people
and for the people, should be perpetuated
through all coming time. Let it say here
with one voice and one will that whatever
was necessary and lawful to preserve the
purity of the ballot box and peace at the
polls should be freely granted, regardless of
partisan purposes or partisan ends, (Ap-
plause on Republican side.)
Mr.. Humphrey considered the pending
bill as one of the most dangerous that could
be passed, and made part of the laws of free
government and one which should be enti-
tied "a bill to bring into disgrace free
institutions"
Mr.. White moved to amend the bill by
striking out the provision requiring deputy
marshsIs to be appointed in equal numbers
IFOu Gu0 UluoIoub pOlibICdl Dd1GlCn'
Mr.. Lapham submitted an amendment
providing penalties for interference with the
exercise of the elective franchise.
Mr.. Carlisle submitted an amendment
authorizing the several circuit courts of the
United States to open their respective courts
at any time for the purpose Of appointing
deputy marshals. The previous question
was then moved, and seconded, leaving one
hour to Mr.. Harris, of Virginia, who has
charge of the bill.
Mr.. Harris advocated the bill. He said
that it made 10 important change In the ex-
isting law. The gentlemen on the Repub-
lican side had argued SO as to convey the i'm
preston that the bill sought to interfere with
the duties of deputy marshals as now pro-
vided by law. Such was not the fact. Its
only change of existing law was IN regard to
the mode of appointment, and in provision
that deputy marshals should be taken in
equal numbers from the different political
parties.
White-Does it not take away the power
of marshals to appointany general deputies
for election purposes3
Harris-No it does not touch that question
at all.
White-Does it not defeat entirely the
power which Attorney General Taft said In
his circular in 1876, the marshals had?
Harris--The law does not give that power,
and therefore the pending bill does not take
it up.
White prospect was exercised IN
1876 to protect colored voters in the South,
and this bill takes it away.
Mr.. Harris-The great objection made to
the provisions of this bill, when they we're
embodied in an appropriation, was that it
was rider. The present standard-bearer
of the Republican party expressed himself
on the question, and l will have to read what
he said and the amendment he offered, which
was identical in substance wiuh this bill.
Mr.. White-He only spoke for himself.
Mr.. Harris had read from the clerks desk
an extract from Garfield speech, and asked
what sort of q spectacle was presented on
the Republican side of the House in refusing
to follow its great leader.
Mr.. Cox said the gentleman on the other
side who were sustaining James A. Garfield
for the Presidency, were attacking him in
their opposition to this bill, right in the
house of his friends. He charged that Gar
field and others had suppressed all attempts
to reform the tariff.
Mr.. Carlisle sent to the clerks desk and
QdQ T0du I'll 0AtrdCb lIOA Iuo 6p6cCu VI OdL-
field on the tariff, in which these expressions
occur, which were applauded on the Republi-
can side of the house 81 hold that proper, Just
competition, between home and foreign pro-
ducts, as the best guage by which to regulate
international tariff duties. should be so high
that our manufacturers can fairly compete
with foreign producers. This is my doctrine
of protection. If Congress pursues this lin
of political craftsmanship, we shall year by
year approach more nearly to the practice of
free trade, bcca So we will be more nearly
able to comp3te with other nations on equal
terms (applause.) I am for protection
which leads to ultimate free trade. 1 am for
that free trade which can only be achieved
through reasonable protection. (Applause on
the Republican side.)
Mr.. Conger-I thank the gentleman for
having these extracts read.
Mr.. Carlisle ask the gentleman from
| Pennsylvania whether he is for protection
that will lead to ultimate free trade in this
country.
Mr.. Kelley-I have over and over again
declared that the only road to free trade is
through protection. applause on the Repub-
lican side.)
Mr.. Cox-You can no more tell which side
Garfield is on than you can tell which side
the gentleman from Connecticut (Hawley)
| 10 ~, nc a., tbic hill All tbot haUa to 1o 10