The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1880-09-23

caucus OF republican Senators early in the
December session of 1874 1t was passed by the
Senate on December 90, by vote of 80 yeas to
IA nays Every man who voted in the affirm
alive was republican, and of the IA who vo-
ted in the negative IL were democrats, one
(Sprague) was a republican who afterwards
became a rampant infiationist, and the other
CTipton) was a liberal. In the House. where
as in the Senate the Act was made republi-
can party measure, the final vote, taken on
January Z, 1875, was 1879 in favor to SO against.
Every man who voted in the affirmative was
republican, and Of the SO in the negative II
were democrats, IS were republicans, and 8
were liberals, The act was approved by Pres
ident Grant on january A. 1876 The demo-
cratic attack opened briskly the following
year. Three efforts were made in the House
on June 81, 1876, to secure a vote on a repeal
BILL but the republicans defeated them all by
making points OF order, ordering roll-calls, and
otherwise causing delay. The democratic nat
iOnal convention was to meet at st. Louis on
the following day, and the party leaders in
Congress wished to take such action as would
force an expression on the subject into their
platform They were successful and the
convention adopted its famous declaration that
the republican party was annually enacting
fresh hindrances to resumption adding: GAS
''such hindrance we denonnce the resump-
'tion clause of 1875, and we here demand its
repeal" This declaration made the question
of repeal an issue in the canvass, and to put
the party more emphatically on record in it's
favor, the House passed a repeal bill on Aug.
5, by vote of 106 yeas to 50 nays. Of the
voters in the affirmative 81 were democrats
and republicans, and of OF those in the mega
tive ~ were democrats and % republicans
The republican Senate stopped the mischief
for that year by declining to pass the bill.
Gen. Ewing renewed the attack in 1877. He
introduced repeal bill on Oct 80; it came up
in the House for action two days later. A mo-
ton to bury the bill in committee was defeat
ed by vote Of 116 yeas to 1873 nays Ofthe
yeas 50 were republicans and 81 were demo-
Gratis. Of the nays 107 were democrats and
81 republicans. On Nov. the bill was up
again, and the democrats threatened to block
all legislation on the appropriation bills until
vote on this could be taken. The subject was
debated almost daily until Nov. 90. One of the
ablest speeches against it was made by Gen.
Garfield. A vote was taken on the %, and the
bill was passed by ID majority. Of the 1873
votes in favor Of repeal, 104 were cast by dem
ocrats and 80 by republicans. OF the 1a0votes
against repeal, 80 weaa cast by republicans
and % by democrats. The East cast 81 votes
against repeal, and IA votes for it the West
cast Al votes against repeal, and 80 for it the
South cast 70 votes for repeal, and only 10
against it, and Of these 10 nine were cast by
republicans. Nothing was done with the bill
by the Senate during this session. On March
26, 1878, the subject was taken up in the Sen
ate, and on June IA that body passed substi-
tute which struck out the repeating clause of
of the House bill, and provided that on and
after the passage of the bill greenbacks should
be receivable as coin for four per cent. bonds,
and after Oct. 81, 1878, be receivable in pay
ment of duties. The vote on the bill thus
amended was As yeas and Is nays ..Of the yeas,
81 were republicans and "a were democrats
of the nays, 8 were republicans and 6 demo-
Gratis. This substitute failed to secure two
thirds majority in the House, receiving on
June IS, 145 yeas and 105 nays. The parties
were not divided as formerly on this vote, as
the extreme initiation democrats and the hard
money republicans were alike dissatisfied with
the substitute.
This ended the direct attack upon the act
itself In Feb, 1879, Ewing tried to have the
defeated substitute revived but the proposal
was received with derision He reported the
bill from his Committee on Banking and Cur
rency with the Senate substitute stricken out
and some initiation ideas Of his own put in
their place, but on Feb "a the House tabled
the whole question finally by vote of al to
10. This vote is Interesting as showing that,
ever after the Resumption Act was almost
certain of success, the democrats were eager to
IGpGdl IL. vi LuC LEI FO1CS Ill lawn VI
the dying repeal measure, ia were cast by
republicans and 81 by democrats; while of the
Holm favor ofkeeping thesubjectalive 106 were
cast by democrats and only byrepublicans.
In compiling this record we have confined
ourselves to direct attacks upon the Resump
ton Act only. We have shown that that act
was of purely republican origin, and that for
five years the democrats were prevented from
destroying it solely because the republican
party stood guard over it. Had there been a
democratic majority in the Senate we should
be without resumption and its attendant pros
per;ty to-day. But the attacks upon the act itself
were only part ofthe democratic efforts for its
destruction. For five years there was no initiation
scheme too wild to receive democratic sup
port. Unlimited paper and unlimited silver
were advocated under all possible guises, and
were always defended and supported by the
democratic party and defeated by the republi-
can party. The adoption of any ofthese wild
schemes would have defeated resumption as
surely as the repeal of the act. But the re-
publican Senate was the bulwark against
which they all dashed in vain.-N. 7. Tribune.