Year: 1876




relief of JEFF. Davis in the House las


week, though to some extent acrimoniou
and bitter, was Of deep interst as will b
seen. Randall of Pennsylvania was the NOV
er and the one who applied the match 10 tn
trail. It was opposed with much skill an,
ability by Mr.. Blaine, who after getting tn
cauldron in boiling and bubbling condi
tion, the subject was taken up by the mem
Der from this district Mr.. Gargeld-
whose mastery, calm, and honorable hand
ling of the matter squelched all cavail anf
gained for him the respectful attention anC
treatment of the House. As his time-whicl
had been taken up to some extent by inter
ruptions, was courteously extended, anC
the speech thereby extended too, it i.
perhaps too long for single number, ant
we see no way of reducing it without de
stroying its harmonious continuity, con
clude to publish what we can this week,
and the balance in our next. No one car
read it without admiration and pride Of
its statesman like temper and power.


Mr.. GARFIELD. Mr.. Speaker, nc
gentlemen on this floor can regret
more sincerely than 1 do the course
the debate has taken, especially that
portion which occurred yesterday.
TO one who reads the report of that
discussion it would be difficult to
discover the real question at issue
and to learn from the RECORD itself
the scope and character of the pend
ing measure. l regret that Meth
er the speech of the gentleman
from New York Mr.. Cox nor that
of the gentleman fromGeorgia Mr..
HILL has yet appeared in the REC
ORD. Ishould prefer to quote from
the full report, but, replying now, /
must quote them as their speeches
appeared in the public journals of
yesterday and to-day. But they
are here, and can correct any mac
curacy of quotation. Any one who
reads their speeches would not sus-
pect that they were debating a simple
proposition to relieve some citizens
of political and legal disabilities in
cared dnring the late war. For ex-
ample, had l been a casual reader
and not a listener, l should say that
the chief proposition yesterday, was
an arrangement of the administra-
ton of this Government during the
last fifteen years. If L had been call
ed upon to pick out those declara-
tions in the speech of the gentle
man from Georgia Mr.. HILL
which embodied the debate, l should
have said they were these


The history of the last fifteen years is
yet fresh in the minds Of the world. 1t is
useless to speak of the grace and magma
nimity of the republican party. With the
master enslaved, with intelligence disfran-
chised, with society disordered, with States
with Legislatures dispersed, peo-
pie cannot afford to talk of grace and mag
If this is grace and magnanim-
lty, l pray to God to spare the country in
future from such virtues.


l should say that the propositions
and arguments arrayed around that
paragraph were the center and cir
of his theme. Let me
then In a few words try to re-
call the House to the actual topic of
this debate.


A gentleman on the other side of
the House, a few days ago, introduc-
ed proposition in the form of bill
10 grant amnesty to the remaining
persons who are not relieved of
their political disabilities under the
Constitution. 1t is a very important
1t is proposition to
inish and complete forever the
work of executing one of the great
clauses of the Constitution Of our
When that bill shall have
become a law, a large part of the
amendment will have
ceased to be an operative clause of
,he Constitution.


Whenever so great and important
4 matter is proposed a deliberative
body should bring to its considera.
ton the fullest and most serious ex-
But what was proposed
n this case? Not TO deliberate,
lot to amend, not even to refer to
\ committee for the ordIary consid-
eration given even to a proposition
20 repeal the tax on matches. No
reference to any body; but q mem
Der of the House, refusing the priv
lege of amendment and the right TO
lebate, except as it might come from
lis courtesy, and pass it, declaring
Is he does so, the time has come to
10 justice to an oppressed people.


Under circumstances like these,
Mr.. Speaker, a large number of per-
'ons on this floor felt that they had
! right, under the rules of the House |
and in the forum of justice and fair
dealing, an undoubted right to de-
iberate on the proposition; that it |
should be open to amendment and |
lebate. Every expression on this
'ide of the House showed that we