The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-09-27

an an gel of light. he could reconcile that
character with the character he had now.
except under the principle that the laws
were SO poor that they should be erased
from the statute books. Either Daven-
port should be abolished as a corrupt man
or the laws were SO corrupt hat they
should he repealed. The laws were an
evidence of a past era In our history. We
belonged TO a generation that was kneel-
Ing no o niger to the past. but TO the future.
He wanted 10 strike from the statute books
every trace of reconstruction measures.
He belonged to q party that was not q SEQ
tloual party. He belonged to q party thai
did not believe in anything sectional. The
Republicans had violated the pledges OF
the fathers. had oyerridden the Constitu-
ton, had denied the rightof habess corpus,
had shown the people that they were not
worthy of confidence. and the people had
elected a Democratic President and q DEM
ocratIc Congress-. Applause.
REPLY OF BRosIUs.
Mr.. BrosIus congratulated the gentleman
from Virginia on bis able speech. and he
desired to emulate his example In one
particular. He would be glad TO discuss
the measure from q non-partissn point of
view. He believed that underneath the
frcttlng stream of our politics there was q
patriotism. and TO that patriotism he ap-
pealed to-day. He then spoke against the
proposed repeal. He laid down the PROPOSE.
lions that the federal Constitution was not
the creature of the States. but was created
by the people; that the power and authority
conferred upon the people was operative In
all the states aud over all the people; that
the State was empowered to enforce the
Constitution. Mr.. Brosius has q very
theatrical voico and manner OF delivery;
but even he oould not attract attention.
There were upon the Republican side about
nifty mem bers and upon the Democratic
aide about twenty-five members. although
Others were enjoying a pleasant smoke In
the closkrooms.
Mr.. Brosius said the repeal of the federal
Ia VS. would leave citizens OF this country
unprotected. naked and exposed. unless
the power OF the States mercifully inter-
veped. Never before had there been pro-
posed q surrender so base, so humiliatlng-
never since the heresy of States rights
was tried IN battle. Let the majority COM
pass, If il pleased. the subservience of the
United States and abdicate the power OF
the Nation To the various States. The gov
should not surrender its right TO
control Its own affairs.
Mr.. Compton said that the gentlemen
contended that the federal election laws
should be- maintained. Would the GENTLE
man tell the House why the fatherso of the
republic had never seen lit to enforce she
provision granting the government a right
I'd supervise electionsf
MIR. 1rosius replied that II gave him pro-
found satisfaction TO answer his friends
question. The power conferred in the Con-
stitution had not been called into requlsi-
ton In the history of the country before
the war. because villainy and wrong were
progressive. and the fathers aud their
grandsires had never conceived of the
meane which had since been conceived by
certain citizens of their rights.
The bill then went over for the present.
just before Adjournment. Delegate Flynn,
OF Oklahoma. got mp his resolution calling
on the Secretary of War for information
regarding the alleged outrages committed
by the military ut the opening OF the Cher
okee Strip. Mr.. Springer made the point
of mo quorum" when tho previous ques-
ton was ordered. TO have an opportunity
and reply to some of the structures Mr..
Flynn had INDUCED In in his reference to
Secretary Smith.