§º º, Vºlſº
•º -> -
|
|
|
|
t
ICH i{AN
- mºrn Enrºll-ºr-mºmºmºrrºr-
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE GIFT OF
Professor H. L. Wilgus

(P. 3.
º 6 REvolution IN CONGRESS.
0. * * . . . - r *
g f t
, -’ſ 2. º
S E E E CIH
- - -—or— - - * *
HON. JAMES A GARFIELD
* - o * 4. tº ': * y
C.E." C.E.I.T.C., 3 -
IN THE HOUSE, OR BEPRESENTATIVES,
SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 1879.
The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1) making appropriations for
the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes—
Mr. GARFIELD said: t - - - **
Mr. CHAIRMAN: “I have no hope of being able to convey to the members of this
House my own conviction of the very grewt gravity and solemnity of the crisis which
this decision of the Chair and of the Committee of the Whole has brought upon
this country. I wish I could be proved a false prophet in reference to the result of
this action, I wish I could be overwhelmed with the proof that I am utterly mis-
taken in my views. But no view I have evertaken has entered more deeply and more.
seriously into my convictions than this : that this House has to-day resolved to enter
upon a revolution, against the Constitution and Government of the United States.
I do not know that that intention exists in the minds of half the Representatives.
who occupy the other side of this Hall. I hope it does not. I am ready to believe
it does not exist to any large extent. But I mean to say the consequence of the pro-
gramme just adopted, if persisted in, is nothing less than the total subversion of this
Government. |
- THE QUESTON STATED. {
g Let me in the outset state, as carefully as I may, the precise situation. At the
last session, all our ordinary Legislative work was done, in accordānce with the
usages of the House and the Senate, except as to two bills. Two of the twelve
great appropriation bills for the support of the Government were agreed to in both
Houses as to every matter of detail concerning the appropriation proper. We were
assured by the committees of conference in both bodies that there would be no diffi-
culty in adjusting all differences in reference to the amount of money to be appro-
priated and the objects of its appropriation. But the House of Representatives pro-
posed three measures of distinctly independent legislation ; one upon the Army ap-
propriation bill, and two upon the legislative appropriation bill. ... The three grouped
together are briefly these: first, the substantial modification of certain sections of
the law relating to the use of the Army; Second, the repeal of the jurors’ test oath;
and third, the repeal of the laws regulating elections of members of Congress.
These three propositions of Legislation were insisted upon by the House, but
the Senate refused to adopt them. So far it was an ordinary proceeding, one which
occurs frequently in all legislative bodies. The Senate said to us through their con-
ferees: “We are ready to pass the appropriation bills, but we are unwilling to pass
as riders the three legislative measures you ask us to pass.” Thereupon the House,
through its conference committee, made the following declaration. And in order
that I may do exact justice I read from the speech of the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. BECK :] - 4. *
The democratic conferees on the part of the House seem determined that unless those
rights were secured to the people— - -
Alluding to the three points I have named— w
in the bill sent to the Senate they would refuse, under their constitutional right, to make
appropriations to Garry on the Government, if the doinillant majority in the Senaté insisted
upon the maintenance of these laws and refused to consent to their repeal. - . *
2
Then, after stating that if the position they had taken compelled an extra
session, and that the new Congress would offer the repealing bills Seperately, and
forecasting what would happen when the new House should be under no necessity
of coercing the Senate, he declared that—
If however, the President of the United States, in the exercise of the power vested in him
should see fit to veto the bills thus presented to him, * * * then I have no doubt those
same amendments will be again made É. of the appropriation bills, and it will be for the
President to determine whether he will block the wheels of Government and refuse to accept
necessary appropriations rather than allow the representatives of the people to repeal odious
laws which they regard as subversive of their rights and privileges. * * * Whether that
course is right or wrong, it will be adopted, and I have no doubt adhered to, no matter what
happens with the appropriation bills.
That was the proposition made by the democracy in Congress at the close of th
Congress now dead. ſº -
Another distinguished Senator, [Mr. THURMAN]—and I may properly refer to
Senators of a Congress not now in existence—reviewing the situation, declared, in
still more succinct terms :
We claim the right. which the House of Commons in England established after two cen-
turies of contest, to say, we will not grant the money of the people unless there is a redress of
grievances. ---
These propositions were repeated with various degrees of vehemence by thema-
jority in the House.
The majority in the Senate and the minority on this floor expressed the deepest
anxiety to avoid an extra Session and to avert the catastrophe thus threatened—
the stoppage of the Government. They pointed out the danger to the country and
its business interests of an extra session of Congress, and expressed their willingness
to consent to any compromise consistent with their views of duty which should be
offered—not in the way of coercion but in the way of fair adjustment— and asked
to be met in a spirit of just accommodation on the other side. Unfortunately no
spirit of adjustment was manifested in reply to their advances. And now the new
Congress is assembled : and after ten days of caucus deliberation, the House of Rep-
resentatives has resolved, substantially, to reaffirm the positions of its predecessors,
except that the suggestion of Senator BECK to offer the independent legislation in a
separate bill has been abandoned. By a construction of the rules of the House, far
more violent than any heretofore given, a part of this independent legislation is
placed on the pending bill for the support of the Army ; and this House has deter-
mined to begin its career by the extremest form of coercive legislation.
In may remarks to-day I shall confine myself almost exclusively to the one phase
of the controversy presented in this bull. *
Mr. ATKINS. Will the honorable gentleman allow me to interrupt him a
In Oment. - - *.
Mr. GARFIELD. With pleasure.
Mr. ATKINS. Do I understand you to state that in the conference committee
no proposition was made other than the one suggested in the legislation proposed
to be attached to the bill, by the House conferees? -
Mr. GARFIELD. I did not undertake to state what was done in conference
except as reported by Senator BECK, for I was not a member of the committee.
Mr. ATKINS. I thought you did. ~
Mr. GARFIELD. No ; I only declared what was proposed on the floor of the
House and Senate. - -
Mr. ATKINS. With the gentleman’s permission, I will state the proposition
the House made in conference committee was substantially the proposition now be-
fore the House and here offered to be attached to these bills.
Mr. GARFIELD. I take it for granted that what my friend on the other side
Says is strictly true ; but not even that proposition was reported to either House.
The question, Mr. Chairman, may be asked, why make any special resistance to
the clauses of legislation in this bill which a good many gentlemen on this side declared
at the last session they cared but little about, and regarded as of very litttle practiº
Cal importance, because for years there had been no actual use for any part of these
laws, and they had no expectation there would be any? It may be asked, why make
any controversy on either side 2 So far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I desire
to Say this : we recognize the other side as accomplished parliamentarians and strat-
egists, who have adopted with skill and adroitness their plan of assault. You have
placed in the front one of the least objectionable of your measures; but your whole
programme has been announced, and we reply to your whole order of battle. The
logic of your position compels us to meet you as promptly on the skirmish line as
3
(9
afterwards when our intrenchments are assailed ; and therefore, at the outset, we
plant our case upon the general ground upon which we have chosen to defendit.
THE VOLUNTARY POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
And here, sir, I wish to make a brief digression, in which I hope no gentleman
will consider my discussion as Coptroversial or personal. I had occasion, at a late
hour of the last Congress, to say something on what may be called the voluntary
element in our institutions. I spoke of the distribution of the powers of Government.
‘First, to the nation ; second, to the States; and third, the reservation of power to
the people themselves.
I called attention to the fact that under our form of government the most pre-
cious rights that men can possess on this earth are not delegated to the nation nor to
the States, but are reserved to the third estate—the people themselves. I called at-
tention to the interesting fact that lately the chancellor of the German Empire made
the declaration that it was the chief object of the existence of the German govern-
ment to defend and maintain the religion of Jesus Christ —an object in reference to
which our Congress is absolutely forbidden by the Constitution to legs; i... ut all.
Congress can establish no religion ; indeed, can make no law respectinº i , ºause
in the view of our fathers—the founders of our government—religiou yºus I, , , pre-
cious a right to intrust its interests by delegation to anybody. Its mail 'c. Rºe was
left to the voluntary action of the people themselves. /*
In continuation of that thought, I wish now to speak of the voluntary element
inside our Government—a topic that I have not often heard discussed, but one which
appears to me of vital importance in any comprehensive view of our institutions.
Mr Chairman, viewed from the standpoint of a foreigner, our Government may
be said to be the feeblest on the earth. From our standpoint, and with our expe-
rience, it is the mightiest. But why would a foreigner call it the feeblest? He can
point out a half-dozen ways in which it can be destroyed without violence. Of
eourse, all governments may be overturned by the Sword; but there are several ways
in which our Government may be annihilated without the firing of a gun.
For example, if the people of the United States should say we will elect no
Representatives to the House of Representatives. . Of course, this is a violent sup-
position ; but suppose that they do not, is there any remedy? Does our Constitution
provide any remedy whatever ? In two years there would be no House of Represen-
tatives; of course no support of the Government, and no Government. Suppose
again, the States should say, through their Legislatures, we will elect no Senators.
Such abstention alone would absolutely destroy this Government ; and our system
provides no process of compulsion to prevent it. - *
Again, suppose the two Houses were assembled in their usual order, and a
majority of one in this body or in the Senate should firmly band themselves together
and say, we will vote to adjourn the moment the hour of meeting arrives, and con-
tinue so to vote at every session during our two years of existence ; the Government
would perish, and there is no provision of the Constitution to prevent it. Or again, if
a majority of one of either body should declare that they would vote down, and did
vote down, every bill to support the Government by appropriations, can you find
in the whole range of our judicial or our executive authority any remedy whatever ?
A Senator, or a member of this House is free, and may vote “no,” on every propo-
sition. Nothing but his oath and his honor restrains him. Not so with the execu-
tive and judicial officers. They have no power to destroy this Government. Let
them travel an inch beyond the line of the law, and they fall within the power of
impeachment. But, against the people who create Representatives; against the Leg-
islatures wl.o create Senators; against Senators and Representatives in these Halls,
there is no power of impeachment; there is no remedy, if, by abstention or by ad-
verse votes, they refuse to support the Government.
At a first view, it would seem strange that a body of men so wise as our fathers
were should have left a whole side of their fabric open to these deadly assaults; but
on a closer view of the case their wisdom will appear. What was their reliance 2 This:
The sovereign of this nation, the God-crowned and Heaven-annointed sovereign, in
whom resides “the State's collected will,” and to whom we all owe allegiance, is
the people themselves. Inspired by love of country and by a deep sense of obligation
to perform every public duty ; being themselves the creators of all the agencies and
forces to execute their own will, and choosing from themselves their representatives
to express that will in the forms of law, it would have been like a suggestion of sui-
cide to assume that any of these voluntary powers would be turned against the life
of the Government. Public opinion—that great ocean of thought from whose level
4
all heights and depths are measured—was trusted as a power amply able, and always
willing, to guard all the approaches on that side of the Constitution from any as-
sault on the life of the nation. . . . * * - - " ... • * : i
Up to this hour our sovereign has never failed us. There has never been such
a refusal to exercise those primary fuctions of sovereignty as either to endanger Or
cripple the Government ; nor have the majority of the representatives of that Sov-
ereign in either House of Congress ever before announced their purpose to use their
voluntary powers for its destruction. And now, for the first time in
our hisjory, and I will add for the first time for at least two centuries in the
history of any English speaking nation, it is proposed and insisted upon that these
voluntary powers shall be used for the destruction of the Goverment, I want it
distinctly understood that the proposition which I read at the beginning of my re-
marks, and which is the programme announced to the American people to-day, is
this: that if the House cannot have its own way in certain matters, not connected
with appropriations, it will so use, or refrain from using, its voluntary powers as to
destroy the Government. S -
Now, Mr. Chairman, it has been said on the other side that when a demand for
the redress of grievances is made, the authority that runs the risk of stopping and
destroying the Government, is the one that resists the redress. Not so. If gentle-
men will do me the honor to follow my thought for a moment more, I trust, I will
make this denial good. d
FREE, CONSENT THE BASIS OF OUR FAWS.
Our theory of law is free consent. That is the granite foundation of our whole
superstructure. Nothing in this Republic can be law without consent—the free con-
sent of the House ; the free consent of the Senate ; the free consent of the Execu-
tive, or, if he refuse it, the free consent of two-thirds of these bodies. Will any
man deny that ? Will any man challenge a line of the statement that free consent
is the foundation rock of all our institutions 2 And yet the programme announced
two weeks ago was that if the Senate refused to consent to the demand of the House,
the Government should stop. And the proposition was then, and the programme is
now, that, although there is not a Senate to be coerced, there is still a third indepen-
dent branch in the legislative power of the Government whose consent is to be coerced
at the pºril of the destruction of this Government; that is, if the President, in the
discharge of his duty, shall exercise his plain constitutional right to refuse his con-
sent to this proposed legislation, the Congress will so use its voluntary powers as to
destroy the Government. This is the proposition, which we confront ; and we de-
nounce it as revolution. .
It makes no difference, Mr. Chairman, what the issue is. . If it were the sim-
plest and most inoffensive proposition in the world, yet if you demand, as a matter
of coercion, that it shall be adopted against the free consent prescribed in the Con-
stitution, every fair-minded man in America is bound to resist you as much as though
his own life depended upon his resistance. -
Let it be understood that. I am not arguing the merits of anyone of the three
amendments. I am discussing the proposed method of legislation ; and I declare
that it is against the Constitution of our country. It is revolutionary to the core,
and is destructive of the fundamental element of American liberty, the free consent
of all the powers that unite to make laws. - - t
In opening this debate I challenge all comers to show a single instance in our
history where this consent has been coerced. This is the great, the paramount is-
sue, which dwarfs all others into insignificance. ' .
!
THE ORIGIN OF THE LAW soughT TO BE MODIFIED.
I now turm aside for a moment from the line of my argument to say that it is
not a little surprising that our friends on the other side should have gone into this
great contest on So weak a cause as the one embraced in the pending amendment to
this bill. - - - •
Victor Hugo said in his description of the battle of Waterloo that the struggle
of the two armies was like the wrestling of two giants, when a chip under the heel
of one might determine the victory. It may be that this amendment is the chip under
your heel, or it may be that it is the chip on our shoulder. As a chip it is of small
account to you or to us; but when it represents the integrity of the Constitution and
is assailed by revolution, we fight for it as if it were a Kohinoor of purest water.
[Applause.] * - -
5
The distinguished and venerable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] spoke
of this law, which is sought to be repealed, as “odious and dangerous.” It has been
denounced as a piece of partisan war legislation to enable the Army to control elec-
tions. - - * . -
Do gentlemen know its history 2 Do they know whereof they affirm 2 Who
made this law which is denounced as so great an offense as to justify the destruction
of the Government rather than let it remain on the statute-book 2 Its first draft
was introduced into the Senate by a prominent democrat from the State of Ken-
tucky, Mr. Powell, who made an able speech in its favor. . It was reported against
by a republican committee of that body, whose printed report I hold in my hand.
It encountered weeks of debate, was amended and passed, and then came into the
House. Every democrat present in the Senate voted for it on its final passage.
Every Senator who voted against it was a republican. No democrat voted against
it. Who were the democrats that voted for it 2 . Let me read some of the names :
Hendricks of Indiana, Davis of Kentucky, Johnson of Maryland, McDougall of
California, Powell of Kentucky, Richardson of Illinois, and Saulsbury of Delaware.
Of republican Senators thirteen voted against it ; only ten voted for it.
The bill then came to the House of Representatives and was put upon its pas-
sage here. How did the vote standin this body ? Every democrat present at the time
in the House of Representatives of the Thirty-eighth Congress voted for it. The total
vote in its favorin the House was 113 ; and of these 58 were democrats. And who were
they 2 The magnates of the party. The distinguished Speaker of this House, Mr.
SAMUEL J. RANDALL, voted for it. The distinguished chairman of the Committee
of Ways and Means of the last House, Mr. FERNANDO WooD, voted for it. The
distinguished member from my own State who now holds a seat in the other end of
the Capitol, Mr. GEORGE. H. PENDLETON, voted for it. Messrs. Cox and COFFROTH,
KERNAN and MoRRISON, who are still in Congress, voted for it. Every democrat.
of conspicious name and fame in that House voted for the bill, and not one against
it. There were but few republicans who voted against it. I was one of the few.
Thaddeus Stevens and Judge KELLEY voted against it. - -
What was the controversy 2 What was the object of the bill? It was alleged by
democrats that in those days of war there were interferences with the proper free-
dom of elections in the border States. We denied the charge ; but lest there might be
some infraction of the freedom of elections, many republicans, unwilling that there
should be even the semblancé of interference with that freedom, voted for it. This
law is an expression of their purpose that the Army should not be used at any elec-
tion except for the purpose of keeping the peace. .
Those republicans who voted against it did so on the ground that there was no
cause for such legislation : that it was a slamder upon the Government and the Army
to say that there were interferences with the proper freedom of elections. I was
among that number— - -
Mr. CARLISLE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly. *
Mr. CARLISLE. I ask if the democrats in the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives did not vote for that propósition because it came in the form of a substi-
tute for anothor proposition that was still more objectionable 2
Mr. GAREIELD. The gentleman is quite mistaken. The original bill was in-
troduced by a gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Powell;] it was amended in its course
through the Senate ; but the votes to which I have referred were the final votes
on its passage after all the amendments had been made ; and, what was more, a re-
publican Senator moved to reconsider it, hoping that they might thereby kill it.
And after several day’s delay and debate it was again passed, every democrat again
voting for it. In the House there was no debate, and therefore no expression of the
reasons why anybody voted for it. Each man voted accordingly to his convictions,
I suppose. 4. ; :
Mr. S TEPHENS. Will the gentleman yield to me 2
Mr. GARFIELD. I yield to the venerable gentleman from Georgia for a ques-
tion. - - -
Mr. STEPHENS. I simply ask if the country is likely to be revolutionized and
the Government destroyed by repealing a law that the gentleman himself voted
against 2 [Laughter of the democratic side.I.
Mr. GARFIELD. I think not. That is not the element of revolution, as I
will show the gentleman. The proposition now is, that after fourteen years have
passed, and not one petition from one American citizen has come to us asking that
this law be repealed ; while not one memorial has found its way to our desks com-
plaining of the law, so far as I have heard, the democratic House of Representatives
now hold if they are not permitted to force upon another House and upon the Ex-
6
ecutive against their consent the repeal of a law that democrats made, this refusal
shall be considered a sufficient ground for starving this Government to death. That
* proposition which we denounce as revolution. [Applause on the Republican
side. I -
Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio a ques-
tion. - -
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly.
Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. Before he leaves that part of his remarks to which
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CARLISLE] has refered, I desire to ask the gen-
tleman whether he wishes to make the impression upon the House that the bill intro-
duced by Senator Powell, of Kentucky, and which resulted finally in the law of 1865,
was the bill that passed the Senate, that passed the House, and for which he says
the present Speaker of this House and myself voted ? -
Mr. GARFIELD. I have not intimated that there were no amendments. On the
contrary I have said it was amended in the Senate. One amendment permitted the
the use of the Army to repel armed enemies of the United States from the polls,
Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. So far as I am personally concerned, I deny that I
ever voted for a bill except as a substitute for a more pernicious and objectionable
measure. [Much laughter on the Republican side. I -
i Mr. GARFIELD. What I have said is a matter of record. And I say again
the gentleman voted for this law, that every democrat in the Senate and in the House
who voted at all, voted for this law just as it now stands, and without their votes it
could not have passed, no amendments whatever were offered in the House
and there was no other bill on the subject before the House.
Mr. FERNANDO WOOD, I desire to submit another question to my friend.
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly. -
Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. It is whether, in 1865, at the time of the passage of
this law, when the war had not really subsided, whether there was not in a portion
of this country a condition of things rendering it almost impossible to exercise the
elective franchise unless there was some degree of military interference. [Great
laughter. T And further, whether, after the experience of fourteen years since the
war has subsided, that gentleman is yet prepared to continue a war measure in a time
of profound peace in this country 2 -
Mr. GARFIELD. No doubt the patriotic gentleman from New York [Mr. FER-
NANDO WooD] took all these things into consideration when he voted for this law ;
and I may have been unpatriotic in voting against it at that time ; but he and I
must stand by Our records, as they were made. -
Let it be understood that I am not discussing the merits of this law. I have
merely turned aside from the line of my argument to show the inconsistence of the
other side in proposing to stop the Government if they cannot force the repeal of a
law which they themselves made. I am discussing a method of revolution against
the Constitution now proposed by this House, and to that issue I hold gentleman in
this debate, and challenge them to reply. -
And here I ask the forbearance of gentlemen on the other side
while Iroffer a suggestion which I make with reluctance. They will bear me wit-
Iaess that I have in many ways shown my desire that the wounds of the war should
be healed ; that the grass that has grown green over the graves of both armies
might symbolize the returning spring of friendship and peace between citizens who
were lately in arms against each other.
But I am compelled by the necessities of the case to refer to a chapter of our re-
cent history. The last act of democratic domination in this Capitol, eighteen years
ago, was striking and dramatic, perhaps heroic. Then the democratic party said to
the republicans, “If you elect the man of your choice as President of the United
States we will shoot your Government to death ;” and the people of this country,
refusing to be coerced by threats or violence, voted as they pleased, and lawfully
elected Abraham Lincoln President of the United States.
Then your leaders, though holding a majority in the other branch of Congress,
were heroic enough to withdraw from their seats and fling down the gage of mor-
tal battle. We called it rebellion ; but we recognized it as courageous athd manly
to avow your purpose, take all the risks, and fight it out on the Open field. Not-
withstanding your utmost efforts to destroy it, the Government was saved. Year
by year since the war ended, those who resisted you have come to believe that you
have finally renounced your purpose to destroy, and are willing to maintain the
Government. In that belief you have been permitted to return to power in the
two Houses. ".
To-day after eighteen years or defeat, the book of your domination is gaain
opened, and your first act awakens every unhappy memory and threatens to destroy
7
the confidence which your professions of patriotism inspired. You turned down a
leaf of the history that recorded your last act of power in 1861, and you have now
signalized your return to power by beginning a second chapter at the same page ;
not this time by a heroic act that declares war on the battle-field, but you say if all
the legislative powers of the Government do not consent to let you tear certain
laws Out of the statute-book, you will not shoot our Government to death as you
tried to do in the first chapter; but you declare that if we do not consent against
our will, if you cannot coerce an independent branch of this Government against
its will, to allow you to tear from the statute-books some laws put there by the will
of the people, you will starve the Government to death. [Great applause on the
republican side.j *
Between death on the field and death by starvation, I do not know that the
American people will see any great difference. The end, if successfully reached,
would be death in either case. Gentlemen, you have it in your power to kill this
Government ; you have it in your power, by withholding these two bills, to smite
the nerve-centers of our Constitution with the paralysis of death ; and you have
declared your purpose to do this, if you cannot break down that fundamental ele-
ment of free consent which up to this hour has always ruled in the legislation of
this Government.
Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a
Question? w -
Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly.
Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina. Do I understand the gentleman to say that
the refusal to permit the Army at the polls will be the death of this Government 2
[Derisive cries of “Oh ſ” “Oh ſ” on the republican side.] That is the logic of
the gentleman’s argument, if it means anything. But we say that it will be the
preservation of this Government to keep the military power from destroying liberty
at the polls. * j r -
Mr. GARFIELD. I have too much respect for the intellect of the gentleman
from North Carolina to believe that he thinks that is my argument. He does not
Say he thinks so. On the contrary, I think that every clear-minded man on this
floor knows that such is not my argument. The position on the other side is sim-
ply this ; that unless some independent branch of the legislative power of this
Government is forced against its will to vote for or to approve of what it does not
freely consent to, you will use the voluntary power in your hands to starve the
Government to death. - f
Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him
another question? Do I understand him to assume that we are forcing some
branch of the Government to do what it does not wish to do? How do we know
that, or how does the gentleman know it? Does the gentleman, when he speaks of
“the Government,” mean to say that it is not the Government of the majority, or
does he assume that the majority is on his side 2
Mr. GARFIELD. I am perfectly protected against the suggestion of the
gentleman. I read in the outset declarations of leading members of his party in
both branches of Congress asserting this programme and declaring the intention of
carrying it through to the end, in spite of the Senate and in spite of an executive
veto, which they anticipate. The method here proposed invites, possibly compels,
a VetO. § -
COERCION OF THE PRESIDENT.
Touching this question of executive action, I remind the gentlemen that in 1856,
the national democratic convention, in session at Cincinnati, and still later, the na-
tional democratic convention of 1860, affirmed the right of the veto as one of the
Sacred rights guaranteed by our Government. Here is the resolution :
That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power by
which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guardſ the pub-
lic interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-
thirds of the Senate and [House of Representatives until the judgment of the people can be ob-
tained thereon. * -
# * -
The doctrine is that any measure which cannot be passed over a veto by a two-
third vote has no right to become a law, and the only mode of redress is an appeal
to the people at the next election. That has been the democratic doctrine from the
earliest days, notably so from Jackson's time until now.
In leaving this topic, let me ask what would you have said if, in 1861, the demo-
cratic members of the Senate, being then a majority of that body, instead of taking
the heroic course and going out to battle, had simply said, “We will put on an ap-
propriation bill an amendment declaring the right of any State to secede from the
8
Union at pleasure, and forbidding the President or any officer of the Army or Navy
of the United States from interfering with any State in its work of secession.” Sup-
pose they had said to the President, “Unless you consent to the incorporation of
this provisión in an appropriation bill, we will refuse supplies to the Government.”
Perhaps they could then have killed the Government by starvation ; but even in the
m adness of that hour, the leaders of rebellion did not think it worthy their man-
hood to put their fight on that dishonorable ground. They planted themselves on
the higher plane of battle and fought it out to defeat. *
Now, by a method which the wildest secessionist scorned to adopt, it is pro-
posed to make this new assault upon the life of the Republic.
Gentlemen, we have calmly surveyed this new fiell of conflict. ; we have tried
to count the cost of the stuuggle, as we did that of 1861 before we took up your
gage of battle. Though no human foresight could forecast the awful loss of blood
and treasure, yet in the name of liberty and union we excepted the issue and fought
it out to the end. We made the appeal to our august sovereign, to the omnipotent
public opinion of America, to determine whether the Union should berish at your
hands. You know the result. And now lawfully, in the exercise of our right as
Representatives, we take up the gage you have this day thrown down, and appeal
again to our common sovereign to determine whether you shall be permitted to de-
stroy the principle of free consent in legislation under the threat of starving the
Government to death. 4 t
We are ready to pass these bills for the support of the Government at any hour
when you will offend them in the ordinary way, by the methods prescribed by the
Jónstitution. If you offer those other propositions of legislation as separate meas-
ures, we will meet you in the fraternal spirit of fair debate and will discuss their.
merits. Some of your measures many of us will vote for in separate bills. But you
shall not coerce any independent branch of this Government, even by the threat of
- starvation, to consent to surrender its voluntary powers until the question has been
appealed to the sovereign and decided in your favor. On this ground we plant our-
selves, and here we will stand to the end.
PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL BALLOT-BOX REFUSED.
Let it be remembered that the avowed object of this new revolution is to destroy
all the defenses which the nation has placed around its ballot-box to guard, the
fountain of its own life. You say that the United States shall not employ even its
civil power to keep peace at the polls. . You say that the marshals shall have no
power either to arrest rioters or criminals who seek to destroy the freedom and
purity of the ballot-box, f f
I remind you that you have not always shown this great zeal in keeping the
civil officers of the General Government out of the States. Only six years before
the war your law authorized marshals of the United States to enter all our hamlets
and households to hunt for fugitive slaves. Not only that, it empowered the mar-
shal to summon the possé comitatus, to command bystanders to join in the chase and
aid in remanding to eternal bondage the fleeing slave. And your democratic Attor-
ney-General, in his opinion published in 1854, declared that the marshal of the Uui-
ted States might summon to his aid the whole able-bodied force of his precinct, not
only including bystanders and other citizens generally, “but any and all Organized
armed forces, whether militia of the State, or officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines
of the United States,” to join in the chase and hunt down the ſugitive. Now, gen-
tlemen, if, for the purpose of making eternal slavery the lot of an American, you
could send your marshals, summon your posse, and use the armed forced of the
United States, with what face or grace can you tell us that this Government cannot
lawfully employ the same marshals with their armed posse, if need be, to maintain
the purity of our own elections and keep the peace at our own polls. You have
made the issue and we have accepted it. In the name of the Constitution and on
behalf of good government and public justice, we make the appeal to our common
sovereign. ~ -
For the present I refrain from discussing the merits of the election laws. I
have sought only to state the first fundamental ground of our opposition to this re-
volutionary method of legislation by coercion. [Great applause.]
' ' Mr. SPARKS. Before the gentleman from Ohio takes his seat. I hope he will
give to the House the name of the Attorney-General of the United States to whom
he referred. i º -
Mr. GARFIELD. . I refer to Caleb Cushing, the democratic Attorney-General
in the Cabinet of President Pierce. . - | 3.
Mr. SPARKS. Precisely ; we only wanted to know the name which the gen-
tlemion did not give before.
* *
*
º § -
º;
º ãº
* +
*
#
ãº
*
.k.
*...
*
º
#
$
* † :
sº
s
3
-3.
*
* ~. ;
*4. iº s
# ºr * : * ~ *
* ~ * • At ºf
# *:: x-
• *-x
* "r
sº
3.
.
- <>
< * **-* * * *
‘. . .'; t 2
º; 3.} : **
** ****
...”
* * *
* . . . . .
“t. . . . .
: º, a ... k.
:: * : & a
*** . . “. …"
• &
. Jººt '... 64. ** *