The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-04-28
THE ISSUE AT WASHINGTON.
Speech of Senator Vest, of
Missouri.
Made in the Senate April IL.

Mr.. Vest: Mr.. President, / cOngratu lat
the Democratic party and the country upo
the fact that at last the issue between the tw
parties in the present remarkable contest
+ distinctly and sharply and unmistakabl
defined. The Democratic party have neye
+ been actuated in this conflict by the desire
simply to obtain possession of the offices o
the Senate. If such had been the case TIVE
! years ago, with an absolute majority anC
absolute control, the Democratic party
would have taken every office in the Senat,
without question or debate. With tina
absolute power in our hands the pay-rolls o
the Senate tn day develop the fact tina
within a few hundred dollars of one half o.
the patronage Of the Senate is in the con
troll of the Republican party.
Sir, the offices of the Senate constitute moi
the issue between these parties. The issue
is defined and well known to the Senate and
to the country. 1t was read to US by the
Senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Cameron),
it was detained to US by the Senator from
Connecticut (AIr. Hawley) in a campaign
speech, during the delivery of viii ch could
almost smell the barbecued meat and hear
the shouts Of the approving multitude. 1t
has been shrieked and yelled at US by the
Senators from Massachusetts,. Finally, in
the grave and deliberate accents of the Sem
ator from Ohio, (Mr. SEerman), We have
laid down with emphatic precision the
object OF his party and the question between
US.
That object, in so many words and
stripped of all rhetoric and all surplusage,
Is simply this the National Republican
party of the United States proposes, with
its vast prestige, its great influence, its
patronage in the Senate, and its federal and
executive patronage, to throw itself into the
contest in the State of Virginia between
the two factions of the Democratic party,
and to crush out with this unequal aid the
real and true Democracy of that glorious
old commonwealth. The Democrats in the
Senate are called upon in the name of the
Constitution and under penalty of being
denounced as revOlutiOnists and traitors to
sit supinely here and see this monstrous
outraged perpetrated upon that gallant
Democracy in the State of Virginia. If
Democrats in the Senate should sit here
supinely and submit to any such thing as
that they would deserve to be branded as
men. Every consideration of
principle, every consideration of honor,
every instinct of chivalry, calls upon US
to stand by our brethren III the State
Of Virginia in making their last great con-
test, after everything else is lost save
honor, for the historic glory of that COM
the mother of States and states
men and of the Democratic party.
tell the gentlemen now, in no spirit of
bravadO, that rather than submit to this in
reference by the National Republican party
in that contest, and rather than see the real
Democracy of Virginia stricken down after
this fashion, we will stay here, God willing,
until the ice again gorges the Potomac and
the SHOWS of December wreath these hills
in their winding sheet.
Mr.. President, because the Demoeratic
party in the Senate have taken this position,
we are denounced as guilty of revolution
and of treason. The Senator from Ohio
Mr.. Sherman announced to us but the
other day the mOnstrous doctrine that the
only rights of the minority here are to
debate, and when the debate has closed the
majority vote, and the voice of the majority
S the voice of God. Sir, it is a monstrous
doctrine it is parliamentary absolutism.
The Senator from Massachusetts, in elo-
luent tones, told us the other day that
senator Of the United States was responsible-I
ilone to his conscience and to his God |
What becomes ofindividual responsibility ? |
What becomes of the answer that every
honest man must make in his official |
,apacity to his own judgment and to his |
,wn conscience if the doctrine of the Sen
ltor from Ohio is true, that the only right |
given to a minority is the right of debate,
Ind that the voice of the majority is then |
he voice of God?
Sir, it is not true that the voice of the |
majority is the supreme law in the United |
states 4 President of the United States |
nay be elected by minority of the votes
# the people. Gen. Garfield received SO
majority in the electoral college and 1900 |
md odd plurality Of the popular vote.
Presidents Of the United States have been
ected by minority of the popular vote
# this Union. The Constitution of the
nj tba Iov ho
majority must act and WELD their power
Under the Constitution and the laws made
II pursuance thereof.
What is revolution? 1t is action outside
f a legally organized government. What
5 treason? 1t is levying war against the
government or giving aid and comfort to its
nemies. Does the Senator from Ohio mean
hat fifteen Senators, acting under their
aths shall sit here supinely and passively
nd allow a law to be enacted which tears
own the government, which subverts the
iberties of the people, which destroys their
est interest? Yet, according to the Sena-
or, they must bow to the will of the major
ty as the will of God.
The grandest triumphs in the parliament
airy history of England have been by
liporities using parliamentary means to
efeat the oppressive will of a majority
ihich they considered detrimental to pub
c interest. 1t is the duty of the minority
D use every parliamentary method under
he Constitution or known to the law to
efeat what they conceive to be an outrage
pom the liberties or interests of the people.
What has been the practice of the Repub
lean party, whose leader reads us a lecture
pom this floor in regard to treason and
evolution? During the two years that
have sat in this chamber have seen the
upon that side of this hall violate
he Constitution, trample upon the rules
f the Senate, sit here placidly and
nd destroy quorum by refusing to vote,
nd when the rule of the Senate requiring
hem to give their reasons for not voting
as been read to them they would receive
t with derision and with sneers. But the
enator from Ohio says that he is not re-
ponsible for this he was not then a mem
er of the Senate. But the Senator came
1to this hall and filibustered for two weeks
D prevent the Will of the majority.
The Constitution of the United States
rovides that a quorum of this body can
rganiZe and proceed to business. We met
ere at the commencement of this executive
ession, organized, sent committee to the
resident, proceeded to the enactment of
BUSINESS, and confirmed some twenty-five
T thirty nominations in executive session
This Senate was as much a senate then as if
very member had been in his seat. We
leard the argument the other day that one
majority is as good as a hundred. When
he Senate was organized and the President
vas informed of that fact, was it not the
senate of the United States Ought not
majority of the Senate then to have pre-
rallied? ask the Senator from Ohio why
lid he flibuster against that majority Oh,
lie says, for delay until the seats upon that
ide Of the chamber had been filed up. Sup
,ose it had taken two months, three months,
our months, to have filled up those seats,
low long would the Senator have waited
Did he not wait for partisan advantage
Did he not wait after the Senate had been
organized under the Constitution? Did he
lot then wait for the organization by the
Republican party, and for that alone?
want to know where was the voice of God
hen?
Sir, the voice of God upon the Democrat
c side of this chamber is a very different
ntonatisn from the Voice of God upon the