The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-25
THE FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS
Debate on Senator Logan's Bill to In
crease the Strength Of the Army.
Mr.. Morgan Opposes the Edmunds Resolutions
The House Passes the Indian Bill and
Talks Politics on the Postoffice Bill.
THE SENATE.

THE SENATE.
The Proposal to Add 5000 Men to the Army
MIR. Morgan on the Edmunds Resolutions.
WASHINGTON, March 24-The Chair laid be-
fore the Senate a petition from 300 citizens of
the Pacific coast, protesting against the cruel
treatment of unoffending Chinese. Il was re-
ferred to the committee on foreign relations.
The Logan bill to increase the e%l1icien1yS OF the
army was placed before tbs Senate, and Mr..
Logan explained that under the Is. 900 regulation
there were but %. 626 effective men in the army;
and under the proposed increase to 30, 000 there
would probably, owing to casualties, ETC., be
only about 81, 900 effective men.
Mr.. Teller opposed the increase. He would
not discuss in detail the Indian policy, but saw
no reason in the Indian question for an increase
Of the army. We could take a number of Indian
children from the hostile tribes, place them in
Indian schools, and Indian wars would cease.
The children would constitute hostages for the
good conduct of the parents.
Mr.. Plat favored an increase of the army.
We should be in a position to enforce the Mon
roe doctrine, if necessary. Complications might
arise at any time with Canada, Mexico, or China,
and we should be prepared to meet emergencies.
Besides. there was domestic danger, Mr.. Plat
said, which justified the maintenance of troops.
The danger did not arise from the honest, indus
trious, sober citizens of this country; did not
arise from any bodies of iaborers associated to-
gether for their own benefit. There was no dan
ger to be appreheuded from them. But there
are people who came here from abroad with no
good intentions to our form of government-men
who raised the red flag of the commune-who
asserted that their object was revolution and
their desire blood. The moment that flag was
raised here, the communists would be joined by
the criminals. Senators should look the situa-
tioc clearly in the face. AS to the militia. MR
Platt said it was undoubtedly the strength Of
the Republic, but it would be principally of serv-
ice as an adjunct of a well organized, even
though small, standing army, which, in our posi-
ton was a necessity.
The hour of 2 o'clock arriving, the army. bill
went over, and the resolutions reported from the
judiciary committee were placed before the Sen
ate.
Mr.. Morgan addressed the Senate in opposition
to the majority report. Referring to the deter
mination of the majority not to confirm nomina-
tions when papers about suspensions are not fur
nished. Mr.. Morgan said the Senate might as
well, in q fit of passion, declare at an end all
intercourse with the President. The attitude of
the Senate could not be justified. The Senate
had no power to prevent the President from per-
forming his constitutional duty. It could reject
his nominations, II 1t thought at. but could do
no more. Mr.. Morgan discussed at some length
the question Of the constitutional limitations of
the Presidents powers, to show that they did
not affect his power of removal, and that his dis
erection in that respect was absolute. That 1t
was purely executive. Mr.. Morgan said, was
shown by the plain fact that it applied to the ex-
ercise of force when that was necessary to dis
possess an Objectionable Office holder. 1t was
not to be supposed that the Constitution gives
Congress that power of impeachment by a two
thirds vote, if that power could be asserted by a
mere majority of the House, as was substan
TALLY attempted in this instance. If the Re-
publican position was now correct, the people, IL
order to effect a change of administration, would
not only have to elect a President, but also wait
until a change could be effected in the political
majority of the Senate.
Mr.. Mitchell, Of Oregon, concurred in the re-
port of the majority of the committee in so far
as it asserted that it was the duty of the execu-
tive officers to furnish, when called upon by the
Senate, papers relating to the administration of
an Office by a suspended official. He would not
of such papers in the Senate was absolutely nee
essary to the discharge by the Senate of its con-
stitutlonal duty in advising and consenting to
proposed removals from office. With that quail
i6cation he concurred in the report of the major
ity. He believed the Attorney general plainly
in error in refusing to furnish the papers called
for; but, If called on to vote on the series of the
majority resolutions as a whole, he would do so
reluctantly and under protest. His only hest
fancy would be because of the Objectionable
character Of the resolution which asserted, sub
stantially, that the absence of the papers called
for would be ground sufficient to warrant the
Senate in refusing to act on the nominations re-
ferred to. So far as his vote, II given for the
whole series of resolutions, was concerned, while
that Objectionable resolution was included, his
vote must be considered merely perfunctionary
and under decided protest. He would reserve
the right to exercise his individual Judgment as
to all nominations. He asserted it to be the
duty of the Senate to perform its own proper
constitutional functions, whether papers were
furnished or not, and in the light of such In
formation or evidence as it might have before it,
or might be able otherwise to obtain.
At this point considerable cross-fre occurred
in the debate between Senators Hoar, Gray, Ed
munds. Butler and Harris, and without action
on the resolutions the Senate adjourned.