Year: 1879

things which verify General Grants Wei
known prediction that their political oppo-
nents may always rely upon democratic
blu nders to help them out if they get into
tight place. The hitching of repeal OF
the federal election law upon the Appropri-
alton bill which provides for the salaries OF
the civil officers of the government is an In
defensible act of folly 1t will. of course.
be rejected by the Senate, and we do not
believe that the House will stand by its
action, although an influential part OF the
democratic press is insisting that this ought
to be done.


If the House should not yield the Presi-
dent will be compelled to call an extra ses-
sion. But what would the democratic
party gain by an extra session? 1t may be
said, indeed, TINT an extra session would
be session of the new Congress. in which
the democrats will have majority OF both
houses. Most certainly the federal cleo
ton law could be repealed by the new
Congress; but for what Ineligible reason
should the democrats wish to repeal 1t in
July or September rather than at the regu-
lar session, which begins in December? 1t
makes no practical difference whether it is
repealed this year or next The federal
election law will be imperative in the
elections Of the present year, like sword
resting in its scabbard. 1t applies only to
elections in which members of Congress or
Presidential electors are to be chosen, and
neither Representatives nor electoral col
leges are to be voted for in the autumn Of
1879. A repeal now or during the coming
summer would have no advantage over u re-
peal next winter. The law, even if it con-
tinues to stand in the statute book, cannot
again como into play until the elections Of
1880, and the attempt to force its repeal
now is nm act of inexcusable haste. Why
threaten to disorganize the government for
SO utterly frivolous difference in mere
date? A repeal of the federal election law in
July, 1880. would bring every practical ad-
vantage which would attend its repeal in
July 1879, since it has no application to
intermediate elections.


Besides, the forcing of an extra session
would almost compel President Hayes to
interpose his veto and throw upon the demo-
Gratis in Congress the responsibility Of dis
organizing the government. Are they pre-
pared to adhere in an extra session to the
revolutionary policy which they are adopt
ing now? If they are going to yield at all
they had better yield now than at IN extra
session. 1t would be mere idle bravado to
put the country to the expense of an
extra session and then surrender their
position if the President should inter-
pose his constitutional negative. If
they force an extra session they will
advance to q position where they are
certain to encounter an ignopinious defeat.
Although they will have majority of both
houses in the next Congress they will not
have two-thirds majority in either house.
Their whole action will be blocked by the
Presidents veto. What will they do then
Will they accept the tremendous RESPONSE
bility of stopping the supplies and disor-
ganizing the government? Will they dare
to adjourn the extra session after the veto
without passing the Appropriation bill? If
they venture upon such an act of idiocy
and lunacy every election will 60 against
them in every Northern State.





for keeping the wheels of the government
in motion is SO extreme and violent meas
ure that nothing can justify it except the
necessity of warding off an evil greater
than anarchy, if indeed there can be
greater evil. Assuredly the federal elec-
ton law is not one of those intoler-
able evils which would justify dissolu-
ton of the government The democratic
party has for four years estopped itself
from setting up such q pretence. 1t has
had majority of the House Of Representa-
tives for the last four sessions-that is to
say, for the last two Congresses. 1t could
at any time within these six years have
tackled q repeal Of the federal election law
upon some indispensable appropriation bill
and have forced the government into a
crisis by adhering to its position. The
fact that it attempted nothing of the
kind is O practical confession by the
democratic party that the federal election
law did not justify so extreme O resort
With this law in full operation the demo-
cessive Houses of Repres entatives, and
have (as they claim) elected one President
of the United States. If Mr.. Tilden was
cheated out Of his election by fraudulent
returning boards that fact, or that fraud,
cannot be charged to the federal election
law, and, in point of fact, it has never
been SO charged. What color of reason,
then. can there be for making SO violent
and revolutionary q war on the federal cleo
ton law at this stage of affairs The law ap-
plies only to elections in which Representa-
tives in Congress or Presidential electors
are chosen, and in spite OF it the democrats
have elected majority Of two successive
Houses of Representative and lin their own
opinion) one President. With what face,
then, or with what dccency can they pre-