St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-21
SPOONER'S DEFENSE,
The Wisconsin Senator Speaks
for Hoar, Davenport and
Force.
The Republican Party, He
Says, Stands Alone the
Champion Of Liberty.
Must the Ballots Purity Be
Protected Only in the
North ?
Mr.. ingalls, Warns Over a Few
Old Cold Roasted Chest
nuts.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20. = Senator
Spooner, in speaking to the election
bill, said:
"a stranger in the gallery, listening
to this debate, without knowledge Of
the history of the country, would be
impressed with the idea that all the
love of liberty and devotion to the con-
stitution and freedom from PARTISAN
ship were to be found ON the other side
of the chamber" He hoped that gen.
tlemen on the other side would
not assume that Republican SEN
ators were not, equally with
them, lovers of liberty. He took pride
in belonging to a party whose history
had been love of liberty and defen of
liberty. Senators on the other side con-
stantly asserted that they spoke for the
Anglo-SaXon race. Republican senators
were also Anglo-Saxons.a .and they would
be as unwilling as the Democratic sena-
tors to disparage or degrade the race.
Gentlemen opposing this bill denounced
it as clearly unconstitutional and
spoke of their devotion to the
constitution. He begged them to
remember that devotion to the
constitution was not confined to
the Democratic side. The Republicans
were denounced as partisans. He
begged 10 suggest that possibly some
persons might imagine that the fierce
ness of the opposition to this bill was
attributable in part to partisan ship.
inv 70 bn RI
that, in the consideration of measure
of this character, there was room for an
honest
Difference of opinion,
and should not forget that denunciation
was not argument, and that epithets
never convinced any intelligent mind.
This debate had been characterized by
something of rudeness. The committee
on privileges and elections had been re-
ferred to i'll language of discourtesy.
Almost every senator on the other side
had made harsh ann bitter reference to
the senator from Massachusetts, (Mr.
HOar). That senator needed no defense,
and, if this were otherwise, he was
abundantly able to take care of himself.
But he hoped that the senator would
not think him officious in saying that he
had heard the attacks with regret and
Indignation. When Massachusetts,
counted her jewels, none would be found
richer and brighter than the name and
fame of the senator in charge of this
bill. He was the peer of any man who
had ever spoken for Massachusetts, in
this chamber. Mr.. Spooner then pro-
ceeded to defend John L. Davenport
from the attacks made upon him, and
contended Certifying his contention
with documentary evidence), that the
federal election law, instead of being
offensive to the Democrats of the North,
has been put into operation at their re-
quest in many instances. He quoted
largely from the decision of Judge
Blatchford in the Hendricks case against
Mr.. Davenport, and said that that ought
to be enough to
Protect NTr. Davenport
against denunciation connected with
that case. The committee on privi-
leges and elections, Mr.. Spencer said,
had been criticized because it was not
able to give an estimate as to the cost
of the enforcement of the bill. 1t was
impossible to form an estimate because
the committee could not know to what
extent it might have to be enforced;
but the people of the United States
would not higgle at any cost that would
bring free, fair and honest elections.
The people of the North had eX-
pended millions and billions and pre-
cious blood without stint, in defend
ing the Union from armed attack. 1t
would be little use to have maintained
the union at such frightful cost and
then to allow blood poison to be intro
duced into the body polite. The people
could afford, after having saved the re-
public, to spend as much money as
might be necessary to protect them
selves in the free and honest expression
Of their will at the polls. Some ap-
plausel. They could afford (cost what it
might, If the means only proved effica-
cious,) to protect the foundations on
which the splendid superstruct-
ure of the republic rested,
from being undermined and destroyed;
and they would not stop to count,
penny by penny and dollar by dollar,
the cost, if it would only insure hon.
esty and security at the ballot box. Was
there, he asked, any necessity for fed
eral law of elections? He wished that
there was not; but who would have the
etfrontery to say that there was not?
AS to the North, the necessity for it and
its efficiency had been tested and estab-
lished by twenty years of administra-
ton. The people of the North had not
complained of it nor found it offensive.
How about the South? 1t had been
said on the other side that the bill was
Aimed at the South.
II was, in part. 1t was aimed at every
spot in the United States where, by
fraud or force, men who had right to
vote for members of congress were
cheated out of that right. The South,
he thought, was where the bill was
specially needed. In proof this he read
extracts from speech made by Mr..
Chrisman in the late constitutional con-
vention of Mississippi, declaring that
since 1875 there had not been a fair
election in that state; that. in plain
words, they (the white people) had been
stuffing ballot boxes, committing per-
jury and carrying election by frauds.and
violence until the whole machinery of
elections was about to rot down. He
also read the qualifications for voters
contained in the new constitution of
Mississippi, among others being the
ability of the voter (after January, 1892
to state or give reasonable explanation
of the meaning Of the clause of the con-
stitution of the state. Mr.. Spooner bad
his doubts of the ability of some sena-
tors on the other side to understand