The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-09-27
THE DISCUSSION BEGUN.
MR.. TUCKER OPENS DEBATE ON
THE FEDERAL ELECTION LAW.
In an Able Speech He Advocates His Re-
Mr.. Perkins on Repeal.

the House to-day. but the attendance was
unusually small on both sides of the
chamber when the rap of the gayel called
the members to order at noon.
on motion Of Mr.. Grosvenor (Ohlo) a
joint resolution was passed, authorizing
the Commissioners of the Chattanooga
National Park 10 use stone and gravel
on the grounds for the purpose Of max
ing foundations for monuments.
Mr. Talbert IS. c. asked consent for
the immediate consideration Of a reso-
| luton requesting the Committee on Bank
Ing and Currency, after the disposal of
the Federal election repeal bills, TO re-
port the McKurin bill Mr.. Warner Dem.
| ~ y objected.
| In the second morning hour 6he first
| being unproductive of results) the House
| un accordance with the special order) pro-
| ceeded 10 the consideration of the Fede-
raj Elections repeal bill, and Mr.. Tuck
er, or Virginia, opened the debate.
He argued that the statutes which It
was proposed TO repeal We're unconstitu-
tional, and that Congress had no right
| to confer the power that IL had done
| upon supervisors of election. The right OF
| suffrage was right reserved to the
States and granted specifically in the
| Constitution. The right Of suffrage rest
| ed in the States OF the Union. He planted
hAiiiStlL OH llt ETOuuu lndL tne IlBnt OF
| citizen TO vote was n right given him.
| not by the Constitution of the United
| States, nor by the Federal government,
but by the right preserved in the State
| and recognized by the Constitution.
What right, he queried, was worth
| having that was put into the hands Of
another power? He held that the elective
function and the determining function
| must go hand in hand.
Mr.. Milllken CRep. Me- asked several
questions on this point, and suggested
that the gentleman from Virginia might
be elected from his State as a represent
tative OF his district. but II his right
TO his seat was challenged, the case
would be passed upon by Federal power
Mr.. Tucker replied that that was provid-
ed for I'm the Constitution.
Mr. Tucker declared that II the original
right Of suffrage was in the State, the
Federal government had no right TO
come in and claim the power Of count
ing and canvasslng the vote How could
the United States by its supervisors and
deputy marshals supervise an election
under a law which It had not enacted, or
scrutin.ze the registration "a condition of
suffrage in many Of the States) when
the right OF suffrage emanated from the
State itself, and the State alone could
determine IL?
The right Of suffrage and the condl-
tiOns Of suffrage should be left 10 the
States. The States should be permitted
to control their own elections. The OBJ
ject OF legislation should be to prevent
conflicts between the State and Federal
autl. 1rities. The statutes which 1t was
proposed 10 repeal had been fruitful
ia engendering them.
In reply 10 a question by Mr.. Henderson
(Rep. Ill.) as TO whether there was not
a necessity for Federal supervisors at
the polls. Mr.. Tucker said that he was
not discussing the question OF necessity;
he was discussing the question Of power
The propositions contained in the law
were propositions which should not be al
lowed to live until the 10th Of October.
Then Mr. Ray Rep, y. " and Mr..
Tucker got into n constitutional cOntrO-
versy as 10 the rights of the States. the
Republican cOntending that the Uuited
States ought TO have the right 10 super
wise elections In which the interests OF
the whole country were involved, and the
Democrat held the contrary.
Then Mr.. Tucker paid his respects 10
John ]. Davenport, and severely critl-
cised his actions. The atrocities OF the
Duke Of Alva, he said. did not exceed the
atrocities Of this man. The day had come
when Congress must respond 80 the cry
books these obnoxious laws.
Mr.. Ray rose to defend Mr. Davenport,
and referred 10 s. S. Cox's report euogis-
tic Of that gentleman.
Mr. Tucker inquired whether If. the gen.
tlemen believe that I'm 1877 Davenport |
was an angel OF light. he could recon !
cile that character with the character he |
had now, except under the principle that |
the laws we're sc poor that they should be |
eo1 ha csfg
Davenport should be abolished as cor /
rIpt man. or the laws were so corrupt |
II at they should be repealed. They should
be repealed. They We're an evidence OF a
pSst ere i'm our history. We belonged 90
generation that was looking no 'onger 10
the past but TO the future. We wanted 20
strike from the statute books every trace
Of reconstruction measures. He belonged
10 a party that was not a sectional party. |
He belonged 10 a party that did not be-
lieve I'm anything sectional. The Republi-
cans had violated the pledges OF faith, had |
overridden the constitution, had denied
the right Of habeas corpus, had shown
the people that they were not worthy Of
confidence. and that people had elected
a Democratic president and a Democratic
Congress. fApplause)
Mr.. Rrosius Rep., Pa congratulated
the gentleman from Virginia on his able
speech and ne decided 10 emulate his ex-
ample In one particular. He would be glad
to discuss the measure from a nOn-parti-
san point OF view. He believed that un-
derneath the fretting stream OF our po-
ltics there was patriotism: and 10 that
patriotism he appealed to-day
lie then spoke against the prcf osed re-
peal. He laid down the propositions that
the Federal constitution was not the
ere roature Of the States, but Was created
by the PEOPLE; that the power aud author
ity conferred upon the government were
operative In all States and over all the
people; that the nation was clothed with
amrle power 10 enforce the constitution.
Mr. Brl sius has a very theatrical voice
and ms nner OF delivery, but even he could
rot attract attention. There were 1p9n
the Republican side about fifty members,
and rpon the Democratic side about
twenty-five members. although others
we're e. tcylng a pleasant smoke In the
ciC ak roC ms.
Mr.. Rroslus contended that the repeal
OF the Federal election laws would leave
the citizens OF the country unprotected. |
rPke,s and exposed. unless the power Of
the States mercifully interviewed Never
tefore rad there been proposed a sur
rer der so base. so hUmiliating-never since
when the heresy OF States rights was
tried In hattie. Let the majority compass
II IL pleased, the subservience of the |
United States and abdicate the power Of
the natl)n TO the various States. The
should not surrender It's
rieht 10 control It's ov n affairs
Nr Talherf ~ q \ Gnaa kif,er In revard ~ |