Northern Ohio journal. [volume] (Painesville, Ohio) 1872-1896, 1880-04-17
THE DEBATE ON THE ARMY BILL.


showing the country how entirely fac
tious il the character of the Republic
can opposition in that body. 1t is the
province of the majority of course to de-
wise ard support scheme of public
policy and although the difficulties o.
the present Congress in this respect
have teen greatly increased by the fact
that I'll e Executive Department of the
Government is in the hands of the op-
position, the majority has at least shown
a desire to promote the objects for
which, as the preamble to that instru-
ment alleges, the Constitution of the
United States was framed. The Demo-
Gratis have endeayored to 'sform more
a more perfect Union" and s'to secure
domestic tranquility" The Republi-
cans can scarcely declare through their
leaders in Congress or through their
State platforms that the object of the
Republican party is to disintegrate the
Union and to secure domestic distur-
bance, and yet it is so plainly the inter-
est of the Republican party that section
al animosities should increase and that
domestic strife should be promoted thai
it would not be unfair to attribute these
purposes to the party as Its objects. Ii
it has any other objects, what are they !:
An opposition cannot secure the conf
denee of a country unless it also has a
programme and policy. 1t must try
the measures proposed by the majority
by some recognized sta ndards in order
to convince the country that the busi-
ness of legislation could be more safely
intl usted to the minority than to the
majority. We look in vain through the
recent debates of Congress to find so
much as an allusion to political princi-
pies. The opposition of the Republi-
cans to Democratic measures seems to
proceed merely from a desire to thwart
position is merely an opposition, and
that is to say that it is a factious opposI-
tion. The most important political de-
bates Of this session have been those
which have taken place on the 'sdeputy
marshals'' clause in the Immediate De-
ficeney bill, and the s'troops at the
polls'' clause in the Army appropria-
tion bill. Everybody knows that the
legislation which was sought to be re-
pealed by these two clauses was adopt
ed in order to carry elections for the
Republican party. Although every
body knows this, no Republican cares
to avow it, and it is extremely difficult,
without avowing the real reason of the
Republican opposition, to bring for
ward colorable pretext for opposing
either of these repeals. Senator Ed
munds is one of the shrewdest men and
one of the best debaters on the Repub-
lican side in the Senate, and Senator
Edmund's speec h against the PROPOSE
ton of the Republican Mr.. Garfield, ac-
cepted by the Democratic House, in re-
spect to the appointment of deputy mar
shals, simply succeeded in showing hat
there was nothing plausible to be said
against that proposition. The debate in
the House-if series of speeches by
the minority can be called debate
shows that number Of Republicans in
but equal to him in factiousness can find
nothing plausible to say against the
''troops at the polls'' clause. Their ar
guments were mutually destructive.
One Republican insisted that the clause
in question would have no effect at all,
and another insisted that it was big
with danger to the republic. In fact the
speakers found no more valid reason to
object to the bill than Mr.. Robeson, who
opposed it because it subordinated the
civil to the military power, or Mr.. Haw-
ley, who opposed it because no condi-
tions should ever be attached to appro-
priations. Perhops nothing quite so
moistrous either as Mr.. Robson s argu-
ment or as MIR. Hawley's argument was
advanced, if we except the declaration
of Wonderful man from Wisconsin
who assured his fellow-Republicans
that s'if thev took the position that this
amendment struck at the root of execu-
tive power, they would stand on the
firm foundation of granite"--as though
the history of constitutional liberty were
not the history of series OF successful
blows sat the root of executive power" !"
Though the Republicans found no good
reason, no plausible reason, even, for
opposing the clause, they were so anx-
ious to oppose it and they opposed it
with arguments so inconsistent that they
contrived, in spite of the judicious 81
lence of the Democrats, to organize rath-
er lively debate among themselves.
The most striking thing about this de-
bate on the Army bill. and the most
striking also about the debate which
preceded it upon the immediate Defici-
ency bill, Is the entire lack which the
Republican p ,eches show of anything
like principal or policy in the Re
publican party. Their motive has been
as consistent, to be sure, as their argu-
ments have been inconsistent. They
mean to keep the Republican party in
power.and to retain for that purpose, il
they can, the system of arbitrary arrests
and of military supervision of elections
the era of reconstruction. But what
they mean to do with the power which
they are SO eager to acquire, nowhere
appears in any speech delivered by any
Republican in Congress. Apparently
the Republican party is to be put in
power in order that it may keep itself
in power. That is an excellent reason
for the Republican office-holders and
maehinists: put there seems to be moth
ing in it to attract the support of such
ers or Republican machinists.
THE saNDEPENDENT VOTER, IN
ENGLAND AND AMERICA.
-A