Year: 1879

ASlAi


IN the House, on the 22d, the Legis-
lative Appropriation bill being under
consideration Mr.. Robson spoke as
follows:


1t had been stated, he said, on the
Republican side of the House that they
would vote for the repeal of those laws
provided the repeal was presented in
an independent section. That declara-
tion had with or without authority
been perverted to mean that they were
willing to vote for the amendment if it
were presented as a separate PROPOSE
tion. That was not only a different
proposition, but exactly an opposite
proposition, because this amendment
did nothing more than repeal an excep-
ton to restricting law, and the re-
pealing of an exception to restricting
law, so far from repeating the law
itself, actually enlarged and increased
its scope. The gentlemen on the other
side seem to argue, and he believ cdtha
they thought (such was the influ enceof
early education and habits, th az .he
people of this country were living not
under the Constitution of the United
States, but under a Confederacy of sep
arate sovereignties, whereas he thought
they were members of u Government
established for the government of the
people, and not of States; Govern
ment that had all the attributes of
Government, including sovereignty,
and that acted directly on the people
on their rights and ON their property.
He admitted and said that he
should never deny, no matter
what was the end or object to
be attained, that all the powers of the
Federal Government were and must be
found within the written Constitution.
That was the source from which the
river of Federal power must flow or else
it would run dry. Nothing had to be
implied. Nothing was to be claimed.
Nothing was to be exercised except
what flowed from the power therein
declared. The Government of the
United States is a Government power
full, sovereign, permanent, and, thank
God, enduring. 1t has q people loyal,
thoughtful, conservative, free, and,
thank God, patriotic. But it has all
the powers of Government not only
for its own establishment and its own
prosperity, but all the powers of Gov
ernment to secure to every citizen every
right which that Government guaran-
tees to him. The argument on the
other side, stripped of its artificial and
technical structure, came to this, that
although the rights were exclusively
secured by and its duties imposed upon
the National Government, yet the pow
er of enforcing those rights or of ex-
crcising those duties (until that power
could be found named among the eX-
press powers in the Constitution) did
not exist. He conceded that the United
States had no power to send Supervi-
sors into State Legislature to watch
over the election of Senators. The
Constitution had adopted the Legisla-
ture as its body, and could not appoint
new officers for it, The Legislature,
(adopted rs whole and as body
must act on that subject according to
its Constitution, and the United States
the title of its members, or to send Off
GERS in and make them part of that
body and govern or control it, but he
contended that if in the discharge of Its
functions derived from the Constitu-
ton of the United States State Legis-
lature was interfered with by riots or dis
turbance by the State law or State au-
thority, then it was not only the right of
the United States but its bounden duty
to send its Marshals and its officers
there to preserve the peace and to see
that that Legislature had a right to ex-
ercise the United States functions given
to it, free from interference by any
body, and whatever power the United
States Government found it necessary
to employ in the selection of United
States Senators, that authority and
power it had a right to apply, and it
was its duty to assist it. He expressly
denied and disclaimed the right of the
United States to appoint the officers of
State Legislature who should take
part in the deliberations of the body,
and he expressly disclaimed and denied
the power of the United States to look
into the qualifications of the members
of that Legislature.


Referring to the proposition laid
down some time since by Mr.. McLane,
of Maryland, that there was no such
thing recognized by the courts as the
"peace of the United States," Mr.
Robson said: consider that preposi-
ton, in whatever lauguagei it is clothed,
which conveys to the minds of the pee-
pie of this country the idea that the
United States has "no peace" the most
dangerous that can be made in any
country, and the most destructive of the
perpetuity of the Government and the
liberties of the people. My friends, said
he to the Democratic side of the House,
let me, in all honesty and good faith, ask
you if that was not the very subject
that was settled by the warp Let me
ask you whether or not the question of
whether the laws of the United States
shall be enforced against whatever
resistance comes up, was not the very
question submitted to the arbitrament
of battle, and whether its decision is
not written in letters of living fire upon
pages as grand and as splendid as any
in the history of the worldP Do you
not understand when you take the posi-
ton that there is "no peace in the
United Statesn to be maintained, you
are reopening the whole question?


Mr.. Davis, of North Carolina, asked
him if he claimed that under the Con-
SIlIuJlOHul uutJ W eSO VhdI IhO law
were enforced the President had a right
to send troops INTO the States.


Mr.. Robson replied that when there
is in the statute book law passed by
Congress and authorized by this Con
stitution, it is the duty of the Pres
ident to see that that law is enforced
and executed against every obstacle
and despite every resistance, and he
believed that when that time came
there would be at the call of the Elk.
ecutive in either section million mer
rising in arms, if need be, to maintain
the supremacy of the laws of the United


States. He believed his friends on the


other side, many of whom had entered


into the existence of the laws before


would be found ranging themselves OF


the side of the Constitutional Govern