Year: 1879

Il


discussion, | desire to ask him wbetb.


er he wishes to make the impression


on this House that the bill introduc.


ed by Senator Powell, of Kentucky


which resulted finally in the law Of


1865, was the bill that passed the


Senate and the House, and myself


voted for?


Mr.. Garfield have not intimated


that there were no amendments


there were amendments.


Mr.. Wood want to correct the


impression. I deny that so far IS


am personally concerned lever voted


for the bill except for substitute


for a far more pernicious and objec.


tIonable measure. ApPause on the


Democratic side.


Mr.. Garfeld-All say is a matter


of record. What l say is that the


gentleman voted for that law, and
every Democrat in the Senate and in
the Honse who voted at all voted
for it.


Mr.. WoOd-I want to ask the gen.
tleman Whether,in 1855, at the time of
the passage of this law, the war had
really subsided-whether there was
not a portion of this country in a
condition where it was impossible to
exercise an elective franchise unless
there was some kind of military in.
terferance; and whether at the ex-
piratlOn of fourteen years after the
war had subsidized, that gentleman is
yet prepared to continue war meas
ure in time of profound peace in
the country? .


Mr.. Garfield have no doubt that
the patriotic gentlemen from New
York took all those things into con-
siderstion when be voted for that
bill, and I may have been unpatriotic
in voting against it, but he and l
must stand on our record as made
up. Let it be understood that have
not at all entered into the discussion
of the merits of the case. / am dis
cussing a method of revolution
against the Constitution of the
United States. -
THE PEOPLE NOT CoERCED IN 1860.


l desire to ask the forbearance Of
the gentlemen on the other side for
remarks that / dislike to make, for
they will bear witness that I have
IN many ways shown my desire that
the wounds of the war shall be
healed, and that the grass that God
plants over the graves of our dead
may signalize the return of friend
ship and peace between all parts of
the country. But l am compelled
by the necessity of the situation to
refer for a moment TO a chapter Of
history. The last act of the Demo
cratic domination in this House
eighteen years ago was stirring and
dramatic, but it was heroic, and
high-sOuled. Then the Democratic
party said: eff you elect your man
as president of the United States,
the people of this country, not will
ing to be coerced, but believing that
they had a right to vote for Abra-
ham Lincoln if they chose, did elect
him lawfully as President, and then
your leaders, in control of the ma
jority of the other wing of this Cap
itol, did the heroic thing of with
drawing from their seats and flung
down to US the. gage of mortal COM
bat. We call this rebellion but we
admitted that it was honorable, that
it was courageous, and that it was
noble to give us the fell gage of
battle, and fight it out in the open
field. That conflict and what fol-
lowed we all know too well; and to-
day, after eighteen years, the book
of your domination is opened where
you turned down your leaves in
1860, and you are signallzing your
return to power by reading the sec
ond chapter mot this time an heroic
one) that declares that if we do not
let you dash a statute out of the
shoot the Union to death
as in the first chapter-but stsrFe it
to death by refusing the necessary
appropriation. Applause on the
Republican side,


You, gentlemen, have it in your
power by withholding these two
bills, to smite the nerve csnters Of
our Constitution to the stiffness of
death; and you have declared yopr
purpose to do it if you cannot break
down the elements of free consent,
that, up to this time have always
ruled in the government.
LESS HONORABLE THAN THE SECESSION
PLAN.


In 1856, in Cincinnati, in the Ma
tiOnaI Democratic Convention, and
still later, in 1850, the National De-
moeraey of the United States sf-
firmed the right of the veto as one
of the sacred rights of our govern
ment, and declared that any law
which could not be passed over q
veto by a tWo-thirds vote had no
right to beeoRae law, and that the
only redress was an appeal from the
veto to the people at the next cleo
tion. That has been the Democra-
tic doctrine on this subject from the
remotest day-Certainly from Gen.
Jaekson's time until now. What
would you have said in 1851, if the
Democratic majority In the Senate,
instead of taking the course which
it did, had simply said, 'We will
put an amendment on an appropria-
tion bill declaring the right of any
State to secede from the Union ct
pleasure, and fOrbidding any officer
of the army or navy of the United
States from interfering with any
State in its purposes to secede.
Suppose that that Democratic ma
jority had said then, "Put that on
these appropriation bills, or we will
refuse supplies to the government
Perhaps they would have killed
the government then By starvation.
But i'm the madness of The bOur, the
leaders of the secession government
did not dream that it would bb bon
orable to put their fight on that
ground, but they walked out on