2'. . .
**
• * ~ *
•“， º... . . （^.
... ?” （, ） ?
• s’
* * * （º.ſ.:
ſº-~ae •
\\ x : x → *，
！ *s* · * ¿ ? .
*** ... ****, ſ°，
*$3$$（)
（ ），
Ź. ** * *
· · *ſ*...）,
.*w
* * * x）
• Ç';
„Řixy ~
<%！
* * * s^&?
* * * · ·
}}*
ſ. ~ :-） *-
}~, º..”,- $% yčºſ， -
ķºſ.• »- ,
,，...“， }ș »
; ; \ ， '）;-
x ≡ ? - &* ·,, ，-·v yº ： *
* -' ’º’ſ. º.， º??? :-（':','<\，· · · -
…š. ≈ ~sºſ; sººſ?）, , ，
, '..*•„º ſ'： # * •
„ “, }
8） *（; , š.
ș* **
-+ *
ș
» （、
* ， ， ， ）,→
,$.， :.*;;
??
* „... , ** **
?*
~~）;
&.*）'）;
…?！ №
**,*） * * * **
（…'，'S
！ ». .
…&#:： -
« … &&*） ;. &
* * *.
*** • •
* * * *;
... .º.”: ºs” . .”
>~}*, , , ** * *
Ķº （;）*;.$” ’ ” «» , á
~~ …“
Ä : «'.
^ »… ?
ſ.
• .·3\，
----* · * *+-
-&& * &?-• • •
:::::::：}}}šſ”, g;，&& &&
..., ; ） ºº º yıs~,,，, ， , sº
frşı ſº ',|-.**• •±±
** Jº.
...º.º.
·~* º *） + "\}.*.* •
*… …<•**4 x.„“ ， , ， ， ）.
** … º.）x{ * * · · · ***：•* • ** * * *,
sae?: * , \，· * * · * *
--* * ·..? --★ →º, → ...? ;-（ ::
* *$.* •
&
. { {
~~' + '-'，':'）;
§ 2.
# * * *
...ººº ！”§¿¿. -§§23 （）·¿?،
№;№: *******∞ √~:：~~
§§§§§#*ae：§§
§§×...׿;،¿
§§
ſae
§§
§§:§;·
¿¿§§
¿
8，ſº è
§§§ §§
|-- ،- ·§§§§§§∞∞∞：ģ#####
§§§§~--~·ſºº-， *.***· -≡§§§§§§）··|-
§§§|--· -
ſſ ：º（'，~~Ķ∞
¿§§§|- ·：
§§§§§§§§ſae¿¿¿?•ſae;º.ae
§§§§§Êae<§§§§§§§§ §---> -§§§§§§§。 ·…，№s，**… …:.，…§§：§§&（3） ***
…、、。§¶√≠ ≤|- |-： aeĶ§§…***， *** §§
∞:ğ№j§ ,∞~：-~§§§§§§§§§·ĢĶ·
，&{}• ！§§、§§§§§¿。·§§ķae§§
§§§§§§§§§§g|§§§§：§§§§§§§ſºk§§§§§§§§șiț¢§§。{&#3%-ae§§§∞∞∞→:،ĶĒ1.·##
≡≡≡≡ºg， *r'，~-----~- ·ſae?&&، ،§$§§
§§§§§§：¿§ğ§##¿§§§§§§§.§§·§§§§§§šķ
· -，，…）£ © ®。ſae¿&.！
§§§，，，，，，，-§#####· §§§§§§§§§§
：țăţ§§§§¡¿：
§ğģ№$ $ģ§§Ë§§ğ####ģ-§§§
¿：¿¿*ż§§§§§§-ſae}};{{###########
¿Ë§§§§§§§§§§§¿
ºſ，、、、。、、。ſae%
±√¶√∞-ſ ºſ， -§§ © ®~-§§§§§§
©®;&§ （*×…………~··· --w ，·-
§

… vſ.
* :?, ¿¿.*
}}|[[JŪBĮ+ +
Eº £
•.•
|TF
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+
}
Jſ
¡ ÉIȚIIIIII¡¡¡¡¡
：∞，∞， ∞*№§}ģ
§§§É
º
-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-
！####
ffi·
łae???+ * ,
·§§§ķ{ſ}
&į¿º «
º
º
HIH IIIH
sººººººººººººººººm!
||||||||ſ|
º
ji
ſae
9%
|
ºl.
*
* ： «
！'', ）;
· :） ） * , ; * , ， º.ſ.* ?, ~
'~~$3'） && ', .¿TÈ） <!--º--
（.*?&'）,';';· * * * *，: -, ， ,
» ~~~~ ~ x.*' º ~
ſill;
º
ſ
§%
ºf Yºº
º
*:
º
º
ºxs
→
~ -.• • • × °
• ！ . （****** ！！! ！！”
§*' ！
º
aº
†º
iſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſiſſilii
*
JJJºſſ
º
ſºfº
ſº
« ; ;:
„， , ; * ~::-:. ". :*（.*?***
*（ 1.） ºº , * ?«. £ + * ， „**
: ~~~. *: *） ）;$;º ）;$**.**. . ; *
« ….”: „', ！***>$.…..-:' ````* w: *
*） ） ' ， :， ’：:?:: ','"'; }}'）+（.*;
· *
Yº
º
YººHºº
.*.* 7. **
ſº...’.,?，!，:））;*
~~ ~~~~ _.',
· · · · · ·
İğ
§
}）;
ſiiſ
IIIlllllliſſiſſiliº
ſiliſiſ
įįſſſſſſ|}}\\ſ|$）$'S！[}
-•••••[[Išſiſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ{{[[Ff] №
|- ¿§©®°¶√∞∞∞∞∞∞∞-§），！§§§|-！！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ ¿acassa：
ÎÎÏÏĪĪīſtīĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪË*** ¿?
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ --w ... .….！“
（±, ± 3; ·
•
ſiſ
|-
- ... *|-|---, *-
, ， ， ， ºwº,~~
7.- **§-s （*=+,） …*3*x*）.*
* ſ; };}}{g（）;
.*¿¿.***）: $,?， º.ſ，
*~*~~~~ ·*: };t :， ’:’， :’‘‘
º.ººº…«*\, ，ķºjșwº
…?”
... .,:.， nº · Jº-º
•*...; *** „
:^:
*::::
**
3
* -.' ' '.'
3 r. “2. ,”, , , , ; ;
ºº::
ſº
§
• • • •• → +
• • • ×|-
· →.* **A*,
}<！-- *** ººº …
· • × °
„“ v|-
vrſ: “<%,
-！！！！！！!！！！！!
* ~~~~ ~ ~\\ r
* 's
f
º:
r:
* 4.
-> ·
.:：::: ~~~, , ， ， ，
！ 3***… ~~~.}}|: }};&
***.*. -> ; “…, … º！}*.*.* #ff;
• §： ， ， ,''）;
• ... :º） - “„（...）;ść§§
… ·· -º £5 ſºº
, ' $3,… ???:??
, ~ ~ ~£, cae, &#%
*
¿.*"，
?--: ***
*** …#Rºšį,
-{,}§,“ sº ſº
***^- …“**…****
.** *; ** * · ·¿? №
L“-ſ . .. ' ';（）， grºſſ-º.
×<！-- .Ř·?:?“
$:'，
* \，† •*-* * … „-• •
*** - - - ~„ “, „35 ‘‘‘«^• … yº •
.. ' •&{;: ） : $ſ;* * *
* . ., º *: *） „a” -^ * *
**S. --:ºº..ººº

‘Fair and Free Elections Essential
to Free Government.
EVERY SAFEGUARD SHOULD BE MAINTAINED,
SBEE CIH
OF
HON WILLIAM MRINID), J.
OF OHIO,
DELIVERED IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1879.

Tº . . .
| 73 0
, /7/4.
Gift
Prof. H. L. Wilgus
/ - P-3 y
SIE’EECEI
O F
HON, WILLIAM MeKINLEY, Jr.
*
The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under
consideration the bill (H. R. No. 2) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and
judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other pur.
poses—
Mr. MCICINLEY said :
Mr. CHAIRMAN : The first movement in the programme of a restored democracy
has already been accomplished so far as this House is concerned in the paralyzation
of the executive forge to preserve peace at the polls. The second step in the same
programme is only checked by a few intervening days when the purity of the ballot-
box is to be submitted to the same lawlessness, with no power in the Federal head
to insure or preserve it. -
The proposition offered by Mr. Southard in the closing hours of the Forty-fift
Congress, and for the most part now renewed in the extraordinary session of the
present Congress, to repeal certain sections of the statutes of the United States
known as the Federal election laws, is a bold and wanton attempt to wipe from the
law all protection of the ballot-box and surrender its purity to the unholy hand of
the hired repeater and its control to the ballot-box stuffers of the great cities of the
North and the tissue-ballot party of the South.
So determined is the democratic party in the House to break down these wise and
just measures, intended to secure an honest ballot to the legal voter, that they make
them a rider to an important appropriation bill, making them, in the language of
my cºlleague, [Mr. McMAHON, ) “a necessary companion to the money voted in
the bill.” .
The repeal of these laws will remove every safeguard against fraud in the exer-
cise of the elective franchise, and will again make possible the enormous outrages
upon a pure ballot and free government which marked the elections in the city of
New York and elsewhere in 1858, the wickedness and extent of which made exist-
ing law necessary and imperative. The proposition we are now considering is an
Open assault upon the freedom and purity of elections.
What are these laws which are to be repealed in so unusual and ‘summary a
manner? Let us briefly examine them ; and, first, let me pause to refute the very
general charge, so often made, that these laws interfere with State and local elec-
tions and encroach upon the rights and powers of the States. They do not apply
to elections for State and local officers in any way. The States fix their own regu-
lations, and these statutes have no force or operation upon the election machinery
employed by the several States for their local elections. There is and can be no
conflict between the State officers and the Federal supervisors and deputy marshals.
The law applies and can only be invoked when there is an election for Representa-
tive or Delegate to Congress.
The Supervisors provided for in this act are appointed in cities and towns of
not less than twenty thousand inhabitants upon the written application to the
United States circuit court of two citizens of said city or town, and shall be ap-
pointed in any county or parish in any congressional district upon like application
to said court of ten citizens of good standing, being citizens thereof. These super-
visors, it will be observed, are to be appointed by the circuit court of the United
States, not by the executive power of the Government nor upon the motion of any
Federal executive or office-holder, but the application comes from the people them-
selves ; their number is limited to two for each election district or voting precinct,
and they shall be of different political parties. &
Their duties are prescribed in sections 2016, 2017, and 2018 of the Revised rº
Statutes, to which I beg your attention: Ax.
4
SEC. 2016. The Supervisors of election, so appointed, are authorized and required to at-
tend at all times and places fixed for the registration of voters, who, being registered, would
be entitled to vote for a Representative or Delegate in Congress, and to challenge any person
offering to register; to attend at all times and places when the names of registered voters may
be marked for challeilge, and to cause such names registered as they may deem proper to be
So marked ; to make, when required, the lists, or either of them, provided for in section 2026
and verify the same ; and upon any occasion and at any time when in attendance upon the
duty herein prescribed, tº personally inspect and scrutinize such registry, and for purposes of
identification to affix their signature to each page of the original list, and of each copy of any
such list of registered voters, at such times, upon each day when any name may be received,
entered, or registered, and in such manner as will, in their judgment, detect and expose the
improper or wrongful removal therefrom, or addition thereto, of any name.
SEC, 2017. The supervisors of election are authorized and required to attend at all times
and places for holding elections of Iłepresentatives or Delegates in Congress, and for counting
the votes, cast at such elections; to challenge any vote offered by any person whose legal
qualifications the Supervisors, or either of them, may doubt ; to be and remain where the
ballot-boxes are kept at all times after the polls are open until every vote cast at such time
and place has been counted, the canvass of all votes polled wholly completed, and the proper
and requisite Certificates or returns made, whether the certificates or returns be required under
any law of the United States, or any State, territorial, or municipal law, and to personally
inspect and Scrutinize, from time to time, and at all times, on the day of election, the man-
ner in which the voting is done, and the way and method in which the pell-books, registry
lists, and tallies or check-books, whether the same are required by any law of the tjniteå
States, or any State, territorial, or municipal law, are kept.
SEC. 2.18. To the end that each candidate for the office of Representative or Delegate in
Congress may obtain the benefit of every vote for him cast, the supervisors of election are,
and each of them is, required to personally scrutinize, count, and canvass each ballot in their
election district or voting precinct cast, whatever may be the indorsenhent on the ballot, or in
whatever box it may have been placed or be found; to make and forward to the officer who, in
accordance with the provisions of section 2:25, has been designated as the chief supervisor of
the judicial district in which the city or town wherein they may serve, acts, such certificates
and returns of all such ballots as such officer may direct and require, and to attach to the reg-
istry list, and any and all copies thereof, an:d to any certificate, statement, or return, whether
the same, or any part or portion thereof, be required by any law of the United States, or oi
any State, territorial, or municipal law, any statement touching the truth or accuracy of the
registry, or the truth or fairness of the election and canvass, which the supervisors of the elec-
tion, or either of them, may desire to make or attach, or which should properly and honestly
be made or attached, in order that the facts may become known.
Their duties, summarized, are as follows:
First. To attend the registration of voters, who, being registered, would be
entitled to vote for a Representative or Delegate to Congress.
Second. To attend at the election held for a Representative or Delegate to
Congress.
Third. To guard and scrutinize such elections.
Fourth. To witness, inspect, and report thereon, with the right of challenge,
and the right to personally scrutinize, count, and canvass each ballot, “to the end
that each candidate for the office of Representative or Delegate to Congress may
obtain the benefit of every vote for him cast.” -
Section 2022 provides that supervisors, in the absence of the marshal and depu-
ties, or if required to assist them, shall have the same duties and powers as is con-
ferred upon deputy marshals by this act, which includes the power of arrest and
the preservation of peace. -
The original purpose of the majority of this IIouse was to repeal the entire
body of the election laws, including that portion to which I have just called your
attention. It is now proposed, under a more recent decree of the democratic cau-
cus, to strike down the deputy marshals only, and wrest from the supervisors the
executive powers now vested in them. This modification is not important in itself,
it is no concession in the interest of an honest election, but it is highly important
and valuable in another view—that of the constitutionality of the law itself. Dur-
ing the brief discussion in the last House the most distinguished leaders of the
democratic party habitually declared the entire law, supervisers and all, wholly
unconstitutienal. They seem, since that time, to have read more carefully section
4 of article 1 of the Constitution, which declares—
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Which cºnstitutional provision confers upon Congress full and adequate powers
at any time to make or alter times, places, and manner of holding elections for
Representatives, and to make or alter such regulations.
The democratic party has thus abandoned the constitutional objection by allow-
ing the sections in relation to supervisors of elections, with some limitations, to
remain. They surrender the constitutional doctrine so strenuously urged against
5
existing law. My distinguished friend from Ohio, [Mr. HURD, I and the gentleman
from Kentucky, [Mr. CARLISLE.J who addressed the committee yesterday, seem not
to have been present at the last caucus of their party, for their arguments are
wholly based upon the constitutional question. Let me suggest to my friends that
if the law is unconstitutional the courts are open to them, where that question can
be judicially determined for all time ; and let me remind them that this law has
been on the statute-book for now seven years, and the question they make, although
decided adversely to their theory by an inferior court, has never found its way to the
final tribunal in such cases—the Supreme Court of the United States. To that tribunal
we invite them to go. I repeat that permitting the Supervisors law to stand is a
giving away of all constitutional objection to the entire body of the law. It ex-
plodes the old dogma of State rights, and removes all necessity for any discussion
upon that point.
Enough of the law is left to recognize the principle always contended for by
the republican party, that Congress had the power and that it was its plain duty to
guard and protect elections where its own members were to be chosen to seats in
this body; but while admitting the constitutional right, they are careful to wipe out
all the provisions which give such a law practical effect in securing an honest elec-
tion and preventing force and fraud at the polls. They are in favor of the law, but
opposed to its execution. Now, let us briefly review what is proposed to be stricken
from the law. This statute provides for the appointment of special deputy mar-
shals; section 2021 prescribes the manner of their appointment, and section 2022
prescribes their duties. I call your attention to them at length, because their
careful reading will dispose of much of the misrepresentation which has been heaped
upon them in debate, and correct much of the misapprehension which prevails con-
cerning them :
SEC. 2021. Whenever an election at which Representatives or Delegates in Congress are
to be chosen is held in any city or town of twenty thousand inhabitants, or upward, the
marshal for the district in which the city or town is situated shall, on the º in
writing, of at least two ci izens residing in such city or town, appoint special deputy mar-
Shals, whose d'lty it shall be, when required thereto, to aid and assist the supervisors of
election in the verification of any list of persons who may have registered or voted ; to at-
tend in each election district or voting precinct at the times and places fixed for the regis-
tration of voters, and at all times and places when and Where the registration may by law
be scrutinized, and the names of registered voters be marked for challenge; and also to
attend, at all times for holding elections, the polls in such district or precinct.
SEC. 2022. The marshal and his general deputies, and such special deputies, shall keep "
the peace, and support and protect the supervisors of election in the discharge of their
duties, preserve order at such places of registration and at such polls, prevent fraudulent
registration and fraudulent voting thereat, or fraudulent conduct on the part of any officer
of election, and immediately, either at the place of registration or polling place, or else-
where, and either before or after registering or vo’ing, to arrest and take into custody, with
or without process, any person who commits, or attempts or offers to commit, any of the "
acts or offences prohibited herein, or who commits any offence against the laws of the United
Sta' es; but no person shall be arrésted without process for any offense not committed in the
presence of the marshal, or his general or special deputies, or either of them, or of the super-
visors of election, or either of them, and for the purposes of arrest or the preservation of the
peace, the supervisors of elec.ion shall, in the absence of the marshal's deputies, or if required
to assist Such deputies, have the same duties and powers as deputy marshals; nor shall any
person, on the day of such election, be arrested without process for any offense committed
on the day of registration. *
As in the case of the supervisors, they have nothing to do with the elections
for State and local offices, and can only be appointed at an election for Representa-
tive or Delegate in Congress. They are to aid and assist the supervisors of election;
to keep the peace at the polls; to preserve order and protect the supervisors in the
discharge of their duties. They are to prévent fraudulent registration and fraudu-
lent voting. ...What honest man can object to provisions of law looking to such im-
portant results? They are to arrest and take into custody, with or without process,
any person who commits, or attempts or offers to commit, any of the acts or offences
prohibited in this act, or who commits any offense against the laws of the United
States. Great exception is made to that part of the law which authorizes the mar-
shals to arrest without process. The impression is sought to be made that this
power is exceptional and without any qualification, while an examination of the law
itself shows that the power is carefully limited and guarded. My colleague [Mr.
HURD] falls into this error, and would leave (unintentionally I have no doubt) a
wrong impression of the law. Here is the language of the gentleman, found in his
speech of April 1 :
The third objection is, that these supervising officers are armed with authority unknown
in the history of the common law or State laws. They have authority at the polls on the
6
day of election to arrest, without warrant, any man whom they may suspect of being about to
engage in a violation of the laws. There is no principle of common law or State law which
can authorize the arrest of citizens on suspicion of an intention to commit an offense.
My friend has not read the law aright, as he will observe. Here is the lan-
guage of the statute, “but no person shall be arrested without process, for any
offense not committed in the presence of the marshal, or his general or special dep-
uties.” Arrest without process can only be made upon view of the crime commit-
ted in the presence of the officer, not upon suspicion or idle rumor, not upon inform-
ation, but upon actual view. There is nothing exceptional in this law. It is as old
as the common law; it is the common law, as old as criminal jurisprudence ; it pre-
vails everywhere throughout the country. The lowest executive officer to the high-
est is authorized to arrest a person whom he sees committing a crime against the
laws of the country. In some of the States this power is reposed in every citizen.
It is the power vested in every police officer of the land. And why should any dis-
tinction be made between the violators of the general laws of the country and the
violators of the election laws of the United States? This dangerous power, so
called, is exercised by the police officers of the capital city, yes, of the very Capitol
itself. " The deputy marshal stands in relation to this law as the policeman to the
general laws against crimes and misdemeanors, and the same necessity exists for
their appointment as for the maintenance of a city police force. If crimes against
the election laws are committed before his eyes, and in the immediate presence of
the officer, it is his duty to arrest without warrant. What honest man will object
to this? Such offenders ought to be sumumarily taken into custody, and the public
sentiment of the country, the common law, and public morals approve and justify.
It is no infringement of the constitutional liberty of the citizen. The party ar-
rested is to be forthwith brought before the commissioner or judge for examination
of the offense alleged against him. If guilty, he is held to answer by the court ; if
not guilty, he is summarily discharged.
This power, I admit, should be most carefully exercised and only reposed in
discreet and honest hands. The appointment of deputy marshals is confined to
cities of twenty thousand inhabitants or upward. They cannot be appointed in
any congressional district where there is no city of that population or greater. The
country districts are not immediately interested in this provision. In Ohio not more
‘than one-fourth of the congressional districts can invoke this provision of law. In
the country and smaller towns deputy marshals are not needed ; here an
honest election is secured by the watchful interest of a large body of fair-minded
‘citizens. Fraud is difficult to to commit where everybody is acquainted with his
neighbors and where the legal voters are known to every citizen. Yet the voter in
the country districts, indeed every voter throughout the land, is interested in free
and honest elections everywhere, for without them his vote loses its legitimate force.
An honest election in the country is of little significance if its true force is to be
overcome by fraud in the large cities. Herein the interest becomes personal and
immediate. In large cities the great bulk of the population are strangers to each
other ; few citizens know their fellow-voters, and from necessity this is the case.
Fraud is easily accomplished, and is inevitable, I may say, without the most rigor-
ous safeguards and the firm enforcement of law.
I have tried fairly to meet and answer the principal objections urged to this
law. Are there any others ? In the discussion had in the Forty-fifth Congress
much stress was placed upon the great expense attending the execution of the law.
I learn that in Cincinnati, my own State, the expense of deputy marshals in 1878,
was less than $400, and they never had a fairer, purer election than at that time.
But to this, in general terms, I answer what signifies the cost if thereby we can
secure a free and fair ballot in this country? Who will count the cost if the enforce-
ment of this law will prevent the repeaters and moonshiners from controlling the
elections and subverting the popular will? For involved in this proposition is the
existence of the Republic and the perpetuation of republican institutions. If hon-
est, fair elections cannot be had, free government is a farce; it is no longer the
popular will which is supreme. Free government cannot be estimated by dollars
or measured by cost. We have long ago discarded that consideration. This ob-
jection has been urged many times beforeto the enforcement of great fundamental
doctrines and principles. The same objection was urged to the prosecution of the war
for the integrity of the Union and of free government. Public sentiment did not
listen then to the cry of cost; it hesitated not, it faltered not then; it ignored the
cost, it fought and successfully fought the great battle of freedom, and public senti-

7
ment will not now pause to count the paltry cost when free and fair elections, the
foundation-stone of free government, are involved in the threatened danger. If I
do not misjudge, the people who fought for free government and maintained it at so
great a cost will now be found firm and invincible for a free ballot and fair elec-
tions. Let me remind the other side of this Chamber that supervisors and mar-
shals will not be needed, and therefore no cost will be incurred, whenever the party
which employs tissue ballots and drives colored citizens from the polls shall do so
no more forever, and whenever demecratic repeaters shall cease to corrupt the bal-
lot—the great fountain of power in this country—in a single sentence, whenever
throughout this whole country, in every State thereof, citizenship is respected and .
the rights under it are fully and amply secured ; when every citizen who is entitled
to vote shall be secure in the free exercise of that right, and the ballot-box shall be
protected from illegal voters, from fraud and violence, Federal supervisors of Fed-
eral elections will be neither expensive nor oppressive.
Until then, the order-loving, patriotic citizen will insist, at any cost upon some
legislative measure or measures which will the more certainly protect the citizen in
in his right of suffrage, which is secured to him under the Constitution and the
laws.
My colleague, [Mr. McMAHON, ) urges another reason for the repeal of these
laws. He says, in his speech in the last House :
The marshal of the United States is the creature of the President. The special deputies
are the mere creatures of the marshal. There is no law nor any general practice requiring
them to be equally divided between the political parties, And if the republican marshal
selects so-called democratic deputies it is to keep them quiet, or with the express or implied
agreement that ther will vote for or possibly openly support the republican ticket.
What will the democratic party think of this grave accusation from one of the
party leaders: that for a consideration, and that, too, for an appointment as deputy
marshal for a single day, democrats will break away from old party affiliation, sur-
render their convictions, and vote the republican ticket? Now if this be the only
objection, it can be avoided by an amendment, which the gentleman can offer at
the proper time, prohibiting the appointment of any democrat as deputy marshal,
thus preventing the corruption of democratic electors. [Applause.]
Again it is urged that the presence of Supervisors and mººrshals intimidates the
democratic voter. Who ever heard of the presence of an officer of the law deter-
ring anybody from doing what he has a legal right to do? Their presence is a re-
straint upon no honest voter. They prevent no citizen who is a legal voter by the
laws of his State and the United States from freely and peacefully exercising that
right. Their presence is his safeguard and security. They disfranchise no man.
They defraud no voter of his just rights under the law. Every legal voter is made
safe in the exercise of his right of suffrage. In the practical operation of this law
since 1372, I have heard of but one instance of injustice, the case of Peter Cole-
man, cited by my distinguished friend from New York, (Mr. Hewitt,) a member of
the last House, and although he alleges that four thousand arrests were made on
election day in the city of New York in 1878, be finds but one victim of oppression,
and his restraint and imprisonment seem to have been Self-imposed. I read from
his remarks :
Fortunately for the cause of liberty, out of these four thousand citizens thus summarily
deprived of their freedom, , , , *, *, one man alone, so poor that he had no friends to
become his bail, and so friendless that he seems not to have known that he might have walked
away, was committed to jail, and allowed to lie there until by accident his case, was made
known in the proper quarter, and proceedings of habeas corpus were taken to test the ques-
tion of the legality of these arrests. The name of that unfortunate citizen was Peter
Coleman.
How carefully and discreetly must this law have been administered when
there can be found but one instance of injustice or Wrong !
Has any legal voter in the United States been prevented from exercising his
right of suffrage by this law, or by the officers acting under it This is the prac-
tical question. None that I have ever heard of; while thousands, yes, tens of thou-
sands of illegal voters have been deterred from voting by virtue of it. The honest
voter has no fear of this law ; it touches him as lightly as the law of larcency
touches the honest man or the law of murder touches him whose hands are stain-
less of human blood. The thief hates the law of larceny ; the murderer the law of
homicide. They, too, can truthfully urge the cost of the execution of these laws;
both are expensive and onerous to the tax-payer. But I have never known such
8
arguments seriously entertained as a reason for their repeal. The law is without
terror save to wrong-doers. The presence of officers of the law only deters crim-
inals from the commission of crime. They are no restraint upon the honest man.
You can form no system of laws which will not be open to seme criticism and abuse.
These prove nothing against the importance and necessity of their maintenance.
But if any better method can be offered for preserving the ballot-box in its purity,
I will cordially accept it and labor for its passage, but until such better method is
proposed we should stand by existing statutes.
We cannot afford to break down a single safeguard which has been thrown
around the ballot-box. Every guarantee must be kept and maintained. Fair-
minded people everywhere are interested in honest elections. It is not a partisan
measure ; it falls alike upon all political parties. The law recognizes no political
creed, and those who execute it should carefully obey its letter and spirit. It pro-
tects democrats and republicans and men of all parties alike.
This House, not content with prohibiting the use of soldiers to keep the peace
at the polls, forbidding their employment by the President in any emergency, how-
ever grave, now seeks to remove every remaining safeguard to a fair and honest
election. The better sentiment of the country, North and South, will not submit
to such umbridled license upon the ballot-box. Mr. Chairman, what will the end
be 7 By an amendment to an Army appropriation bill which was not connected
with the subject matter thereof, peace at the polls can no longer be maintained by
the Chief Executive, no matter how grave the emergency or how pressing the neces-
sity. Tumult and riot may hold high carnival at a Federal polling place and the
Federal arm is powerless to restrain it. This restriction of Federal power, this
paralyzation of executive authority, ought to have satisfied the most extreme State-
rights democrat, but not so. Having forbidden the use of the executive force to
keep the peace at the polls, they now demand that the purity of the ballot and the
freedom of the voter shall be subjected to the same lawlessness with no power in
the Government to restrain it.
Mr. Chairman, my purpose thus far has been to present this law, the repeal of
which is demanded, upon its merits wholly. The proposition, however, of the
Democratic side of the House is to offer this amendment not to the sober, independ-
ent, judgment of the House and the co-ordinate branches of the Government, but
to rush it through right or wrong, justly or unjustly, as a part of a bill making ap-
propriations for the pressing and needful wants of the Government. It is an at-
tempt to do by force what ought to be done, if at all, in the free exercise of the
law-making power by each branch of the Government acting in its proper functions
under the Constitution. If force and coercion be not intended, then why not intro-
duce and consider this legislation under the rules with deliberation and debate upon
its own merits, independent and separate from an appropriation bill? This is the
ordinary course of legislation, recognized by long practice, founded in wisdom, and
never before abandoned for the purposes of coercion. Want of time cannot be
urged in favor of this course; days of idleness have already been spent sufficient for
the purpose. The resort to this method of legislation is a confession of the injus-
tice, wrong, and weakness of the proposed measure, and evinces a determination to
accomplish wrongfully that which cannot be rightfully accomplished. One of the
pretexts urged in favor of placing this amendment upon an appropriation bill is
that the law itself was passed by the Republicans in the same way. This impres-
sion has become so general throughout the country, that it would seem necessary
to state the facts in relation to the passage of the supervisors law. The law sub-
stantially as it is now in the statutes was introduced into the House, referred to the
Judiciary Committee, considered by that committee, and reported back to the House
by the chairman, where it was discussed, voted upon, and passed entirely independ-
ent of any appropriation bill; it took the same scourge in the Senate. It was not a
rider to a bill appropriating money. It is true that the sections extending the su-
pervisors to county districts and restricting their powers in such districts were pass-
ed June 10, 1872, upon the sundry civil appropriation bill.
Not to coerce the President or the Senate, not to obtain what could be obtained
in ºther way, for all of the branches of the Government were then in political
8,000TOl.
I have not stated it as strong as the gravity of the case justifies. The proposi-
tion is to grant no money for the necessary expenses of the Government in its seve-
ral departments unless the Executive affix his signature to a bill which he
may not approve. This doctrine was boldly announced by the distinguished Sena-

9
*
tor from my own State [Mr. THURMAN] in the closing hours of the Forty-fifth:
Congress. That I may do him no injustice, let me give you his exact language:
But that countervailing influence, that countervailing power, was supposed to be found
in the fact that all money bills must originate in the House of Representatives; that the
House should hold the purse-strings, and should say, as our forefathers in England had
Said à the ºls and king, “We will only grant supplies upon condition that grievances
8, re redressed.”
I grant it may be an extreme measure for the House of Represeutatives to affix upon 8.I],
appropriation bill such provisions as are contained in this bill.
:}; :: ::: :: ::: *: :k s: :k
We claim the right, which the House of Commons in England established after two
centuries of contest, to say that we will not grant the money of the people unless there is a
redress of grievances.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECKJ was equally pronounced.
While in the House there seemed to be but one sentiment among the Demo-
crats, which was that these laws must be repealed or the machinery of the Govern-
ment must stop. Mr. Southard; who was designated by the caucus of his party to
present the proposition to repeal the law relating to supervisors of elections, declar-
ed in his speech, “Let the issue come now. Not a dollar of the appropriations
should be voted until this most reasonable redress of grievances is conceded.” And
applause from his Democratic colleagues followed this revolutionary utterance.
Another colleague [Mr. MCMAHON] was no less emphatic. He says:
It is our duty to repeal these laws. It is not worth while to attempt the repeal except
upon an appropriation bill. The Republican Senate would not agree to, nor the Republicăn
President Sign, a bill for such repeal.
* * %. *
We have the power to vote money; let us annex conditions to it and insist upon the re-
dress of g, ievances.
This states their position in the strongest light. He admits the repeal cannot
be accomplished except upon an appropriation bill; that the Republican President
would not sign it; and because he will not, the proposition is to starve the Govern-
ment until he does sign it. Hon. Jere N. Williams, of Alabama, and Hon. J. D. C.
ATKINS, of Tennessee, Representatives from the South, speak to the same effect.
Mr. Williams says:
An appropriation bill is a necessary medium at this time, because we can secure a repeal
in no other wayo Let the work go on, and let those who heed the Constitution anul truly rep-
i. º States and people Stand With unalterable purpose in the position that we have
2re taken. *
Mr. ATKINS says:
The right of the Representatives of the people to withhold supplies is as old as English
liberty. History records numerous instances where the Commons, feeling that the people
were oppressed by laws that the Lords would not consent to repeal by the ordinary methods
#. *::::::::::: obtained redress at last by refusing appropriations unless accompanied by re-
1621. Iºlòºl,SUll'éS.
I might multiply these utterances, North and South, all showing a settled pur-
pose upon the part of the Democratic majority to have their own way in matters of
legislation or they will paralyze the Government. We might well imagine we were
back amid the stormy days of 1860 and '61, when this same party announced the
same doctrine, evinced the same spirit, and pronounced in only another form the
same threat. Restored, but not reconstructed, they are as intent upon controlling
the Government absolutely, in defiance of the Constitution, and in their own way,
as they were in the old days of slavery. They controlled the Executive then; thank
God, they cannot do it now. [Applause on the Republican side.] This mode of
legislation was severely condemned by the early statesmen of both political parties,
and when I have brought to your attention their recorded sentiments on this sub-
ject you will fully justify me in my characterization of this proceeding. In 1855
an attempt was made to place upon the civil and diplomatic bill certain tariff legis-
lation, which was resisted by distinguished Senators representing both parties.
I first quote from Mr. Clayton, and read from the Congressional Globe, (in
the Senate,) second session Thirty-third Congress, page 1035. Mr. Clayton said:
Now, sir, what must be the consequence hereafter of sustaining such a proposition as the
House have put into this bill? Whenever a majority in one branch of Congress shall desire
any great object, which tºey cannot attain by a separate bill, they will move to put it on the
civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, and thus compel the other branch of Congress to ac-
*
10
cept the whole or none. * , ; * . It is a most dangerous precedent; it is an example
that has never been set to us before, and I hope will never be attempted again.
Mr. Bayard said:
Mr. President, I can hardly express in language the objections which I entertain to the
condition of things at which we are now arriving, resulting from the abandonment of all rules
necessary for the preservation of order and the rights of the minority in reference to the leg-
islation of the country. * . * * I am not willing, by my vote, to sanction the adop-
tion of a general system of legislation on the appropriation bills for any and every purpose
that a majority may see fit to place on them.—Congressional Globe, second session, Thirty-
third Congress, page 1044. º
Mr. Seward said :
Mr, President, I regard the proposition to incorporate a new tariff system into the civil
and diplomatic appropriation bill as one of a revolutionary character. * * * Let me
state the question. The House of Representatives virtually says that if the Senate will agree
that certain modifications of the tariff in regard to wool shall be made, &c., then the Presi-
dent and other executive officers of the Government, civil, Judicial aná diplomatic, may re-
ceive their salaries secured to them by the Constitution and laws. But if the Senate will not
consent to these modifications, then no officer of the Government, however high, no servant
of the people, however low, shall receive any compensation.—Congressional Giobe, Second
session, Thirty-third Congress, page 1048.
Mr. Douglass said :
I should be against this measure at the first blush, on the ground that it is not a revenue
tariff; that it is not a free-trade measure; that it is a return to what I had hoped was the ex-
ploded doctºr, ne of protection. In the next place, even if the bill were right in itself, if its
provisions were correct, I could not consent by my vote to put it on this appropriation bill,
for the reason that such a course is revolutionary in its character. :: :: ::: Sir, if you
begin to break through those safeguards which experience and wisdom in all free governments
and legislative bodies have erected, you will have opened the gates to the floods which will
flow in and overwhelm your appropriation bill. * . * * I say, therefore, that I can-
not give my sanction to a course of proceedings so dangerous, so revolutionary in its char-
acter as this, even if I were satisfied with the character of the tariff provision which is pro-
Fºº,” retained in the bill.—Congressional Globe, second session. Thirty-third Congress,
page 1.60. *
Again, in 1856, the House sought to put upon an Army appropriation bill the
following proviso : w
Provided, nevertheless, That no part of the military force of the United States herein
E.; for shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments of the alleged
egislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, recently assembled at Shawnee Mission,
until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was not a valid Legislative Assembly,
ghosen in conformity with the organic law by the people of the said Territory: And provided,
That until Congress shall have passed upon the validity of the said Legislative Assembly of
Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use the military force in said Territory to pre-
serve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons and property there-
in and upon the national highways in the State of Missouri or elsewhere from unlawful
seizures and searches: And be it further provided, That the President is repuired to disarm
the present disorganized militia of the Territory of Kansas, to recall all the United States
arms therein distributed, and to prevent armed men from going into the said Territory to
disturb the public peace or to aid in the enforcement or resistence of real or pretended law.—
Congressional Globe, first session Thirty-fourth Congress, page 1989.
Which in the Senate led to resistance ; and I extract from the discussion then
had. Mr. Cass said :
I am utterly opposed to this mode of coercion by which provisions are to be inserted in
appropriation bills. * * 3- The effect of such a system must be that, instead of hav-
ing a Government with two branches in the legislature—a government composed of popular
numbers and of State sovereignties, each a check on the other—you would have a government
of but one branch; and it would, in fact, degenerate into a French convention. 3: *
You may not call it revolutionary, but it will lead to revolution.—Congressional Głobe, first
session. Thirty-fourth Congress, page 2229.
Mr. Douglas said:
One word upon the principle involved. I hold that the proviso of the House is not only
palpably unconstitutional, but directly revolutionary.—Congressional Globe, first session
Thirty-fourth Congress, page 2230.
Mr. Mason said ;
This House of Representatives, of whom I speak with all respect, have tried on more than
one bill, and now, after three conferences, insist to the latest hour on making the appropria-
tion bills the vehicle of revolutionary measures. For one, I am prepared to try it before the
American people.—Congressional Globe, first session Thirty-fourth Congress, page 2230.
11
Mr. Cass said :
The tendency of this principle is to concentrate all power in the House of Representatives;
to allow them to annex any provision they please, Without reference to the Subject of appro.
riation. Appropriation bills are intended to be bills to carry into effect, pre-existing laws;
ut this would be the establishment of a great fundamental unconstitutional principle,
irreconcilable with lbe nature of our Government.—Congressional Globe, first session
Thirty-fourth Congress, page 2-31. Q
This attempt involves the overthrow of the Constitution. This is the lesson
taught by the early statesmen whose warnings I have just cited. It would destroy
the veto power of the President, one of the safeguards against bad legislation, one
of the checks provided by the organic law.
It in effect says you dare not exercise your veto prerogative even though you
do not approve of our legislation ; if you do, the wheels of the Government must
stop. It overrides one of the constitutional guarantees; it attempts to take away
freedom of action upon the part of the Executive ; it is the first step in the path-
way of revolution. What are the powers of the several departments of the Gov-
ernment in respect to legislation ? I read from section 7, article 1, of the Con-
Stitution :
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall,
before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he
Shall sign it, but if not he shall roturn it, with his objections, to that Housé in which it shall
have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to re-
consider it. If af.er such reconsideration two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall like-
wise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law.
And the same is true of every order, resolution, or vote to which the concur-
rence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary except on a
question of adjournment. In the face of this provision my colleague [Mr. HURD]
says “he [the President] has nothing to do with the legislation of this country.”
By this provision the President becomes a part of the law-making power ; two-
thirds of both Houses alone can override his judgment of any measure which may
be proposed. This proceeding ignores the fundamental law and sets at naught the
Veto power except at the cost of closing up the great departments of the Govern-
ment. -
What does this mean 2 Is it too violent a presumption, is it top strong a state-
ment to say that the party which for four years sought to destroy free government
by arms are now seeking by the more peaceful but less manly methods of coercion
and intimidation to control the Government which they could not destroy 2 If the
Constitution is to be ignored, if free and honest elections cannot be had every-
where throughout the country, free government is as effectively overthrown as
though it had been done by the sword. The President must surrender this power
vested in him by the Constitution, which he solemnly swore to observe and obey,
or the whole machinery of the Government must cease to exercise its functions.
The scope and necessity of this power is discussed in the Federalist, from which I
extract the following, published March 21, 1788 :
It [the veto power] establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body calculated to
guard the community against the effects of faction, of precipitancy, or of º, impulse un-
friendly toſhe public good, Which may happen. to influence 8, majority Of that oqy.
The primary inducement to conferring the power in question upon the Executive is to
enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the
community, against the passing of pad &O/ws through haste, inadvertenge, Or design.
The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply com-
pensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.
% # * 3& * 3: 3:
It is evident that there would be greater danger of his not using his power when neces-
Sary than of his using it too often or too much.
# * + :: 3: % :::
In the case for which it is chiefly designed—that of an immediate attack upon the consti-
tutional rights of the Executive, or in a case in which the public good was evidently and pal-
pably sacrificed—a man of tolerable firmness would avail himself of his constitutional means
Of defense,and Would listen to the admonitions of duty anq responsibility.
It is to be hoped that it will not often happen that improper views will govern. So large
a proportion as two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature at the same time, and this, too,
in spite of the counterpoising weight of the Executive.
This veto power was wisely provided for by the framers of the Constitution,
and until now was never sought to be abrogated. It has more than once been eu-
12
logized by the democrátic party of the United States. In 1856 this party, in na–
tional convention at Cincinnati, commended this power as one of the great consti-
tutional safeguards. Let me read it :
NINTEI DECLARATION.
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 guard the
public interest, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of
two-thirds of the Senate and Höuse of Representatives until the judgment of the people can
be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyranical
dOminion of the Bank of the Ünited States and from a corrupting system of general internal
improvements.
The above was reaffirmed in the democratic conventions of 1860, held in Charles-
ton and Baltimore. ſº
It was a wise power then “to guard the public interest and 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 obtained ;” but
now, in the language of my colleage, [Mr. HURD, J who announces the new doc-
trine of the democratic party, the right of the President to participate in legislation
is denied—“he has nothing to do with the legislation of this country.” This pro-
ceeding is a violation of what was once a fundamental principle of the democratic
faith. Everybody knows the merits of this amendment cannot secure the approval
of two-thirds of either House, much less of both Houses. That is well understood,
and nothing is left in such an event, using the language of the platform, but to wait
and obtain the judgment of the people, and to this tribunal we invite the democratic
party in this House to go.
The gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. CHALMERS, ) in his speech in this House
on the 1st instant, declares that these questions have already been tried before the
people. When and where, I ask? In what State or national platform was the re-
peal of the election laws demanded? In what political contest were they discussed?
The issue is a new one, never tried before the people, and now for the first time
pressed upon Cyngress by the democratic leaders as a necessity to their political
campaign in 1880. In the next presidential contest there must be no safeguards to
an honest ballot, no peace at the polls. Fraud and force, the great weapons of
democratic ascendency, must be unrestricted. The repeal of these laws is a demo-
cratic necessity to the next presidential election.
We are willing to try before the people the question of the constitutional pow-
ers of the President, and whether the election laws, passed in the interest of a free
and honest ballot, shall be maintained or repealed. The great body of voters in
this country want the Constitution preserved in full force, and want and will have,
sooner or later, fair play at the elections both North and South. Repeating, ballot-
box stuffing, the use of tissue ballots, fraud at the polls, intimidation, and restraint
of a free ballot in whatever form, must cease. The public sense abhors all these,
and the party which practices such methods or quietly suffers them to be put in op-
eration will be swept from power by the irresistible force of an honest and enlight-
ened public sentiment. [Applause..] Who is demanding this amendment, and in
whose interest ? Not in the interest of free elections—the honest citizen is not de-
manding it; on the contrary, the general wish is for such legislation as will the more
certainly and securely make the right of suffrage free and untrammeled.
Mr. Chairman, on the 2d day of December, 1878, the President of the United
States in his annual message of that date called the attention of Congress to this
Subject and its great importance, using the following language : -

The three constitutional amendments, which conferred freedom and equality of civil and
political rights upon the colored people of the South, were adopted by the concurrent action.
of the great body of good citizens who maintained the authority of the National Government
and the integrity and perpetuity of the Union at such a cost of treasure and life, as a wise
and necessary embodiment in the organic law of the just results of the war. The people of
the former slaveholding States accepted these results, and gave, in every practicable form,
assurances that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, and laws passed in pur-
Suance thereof, should in good faith be enforced rigidly and impartially, in letter and Spirit,
to the end that the humblest citizen, without distinction of race or color, should under them
Ireceive full and equah protection in person and property and in political º: and privileges.
By these constitutional amendments, the southern section of the Union obtained a large in-
crease of political power in Congress and in the electoral college, and the country justly ex-
pected that elections would proceed, as to the enfranchised race, upon the same circumstances
of legal and constitutional freedom and protection which obtained in all the other States of
the Union. The friends of law and order looked forward to the conduct of these elections as
offering to the general judgment of the country an important opportunity to measure the de-
13
gree in which the right of suffrage could be exercised by the colored people, and would be
respected by their fellow-citizens; but a more general enjoyment of freedom of suffrage by
the colored people, and a more just and generous protection of that freedom by the commu-
nities of which they form a lart, were generally anticipated than the record of the elections
discloses. In some of those States in which the colored people have been unable to make their
opinions felt in the elections the result is mainly due to influences not easily measured or
remedied by legal protection; but in the States of Louisiana and South Carolina at large,
and in some particular congressional districts outside of those States, the records of the
elections seem to compel the conclusion that the rights of the colored voters have been over-
ridden and their participation in the elections not permitted to be either general or free.
I respectfully urge upon your attention that the congressional elections in every district,
in a very important sense, aréjustly a matter of political interest and concern thronghout
the whole country. Each State, every political party, is entitled to the share of power which
is conferred by the legal and constitutional Suffrage. It is the right of every citizen po sess-
ing the qualifications prescribed by law to cast one unintimidated ballot and to have his
ballot homestly counted. So long as the exercise of this power and the enjoyment of this
right are common and equal, practically as well as formally, Submission to the results of the
suffrage will be accorded loyally and gheerfully, and all the departments of Government will
feel the true vigor of the popular will thus expressed... No temporary or administrative in-
terests of Government, however urgent or weighty, Will ever º: the zeal of our people
in defense of the primary rights of citizenship, They understand that the protection of jib-
erty requires the maintenance in full vigor of the manly methods of free speech, free press,
and free suffrage, and will sustain the full authority of Government to enforce the laws
which are framed to preserve these inestimable rights.
This invitation by the Chief Executive to Congress to devise some means for a
fair and honest election, for greater security in the right of suffrage, “that every
citizen possessing the qualifications prescribed by law can cast one unintimidated
ballot, and to have his ballot honestly counted,” is met with no favorable response
or action. No additional Safeguards to the ballot-box are proposed. No increased
security to the voter is extended to him, but in the face of this recommendation,
and in the presence of facts upon which it is based, a democratic Congress deliber-
ately proposes to remove all existing Safeguards to a free and honest ballot.
The recommendation of the President is wholly disregarded ; the fraud, force,
and violence which marked some of the congressional elections in 1878, to which
our attention has been called in this solemn manner, are utterly disregarded. In-
stead of new or additional legislation in the interest of a fair election, old legis-
lation looking to that end is to be swept from the statute-books. The force and in-
timidation hitherto employed at polling places for carrying the elections are to
continue without any restraint, and the same methods are to be used upon the
President to coerce him to approve an amendment which will make fraud upon the
elective franchise more easy of accomplishment and bulldozing beyond the power
40f correction.
This party in Congress, so thirsting for power, is unwilling to await the will of
the people. They seek in advance of that will to usurp all governmental powers.
They are endeavoring to absorb all of the constitutional functions of the Presi-
dent by threat and coercion. They cannot await, in their eagerness, for the voice
of the pe Sple to call them to further power. I assure them that no other course
will succeed. Let me suggest in all kindness, but with great plainness of speech,
to tho gentlemen on the other side, who so recently were engaged in the work of
trying to break up this Government, that they are getting along fast enough, they
already have too much power, and this is made more and still more apparent day
by day as we witness the use of the power now reposed in their hands.
I have not forgotten that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURNJ
who now presides over this committee with so much ability, declared a few days
ago upon the floor of this House, “It is this organization [the democratic] that has
come back to rule and that."means to rule.” That this is their purpose I have never
doubted. How and in what manner let the gentleman's own words speak, and I
read an extract from his speech :
For the first time in eighteen years past, the democracy are back in power in both branches
of this Legislature, and she proposes to signalize her return to power; she proposes to cele-
brate her recovery. Of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these ãegrading badges.
% * * * *
We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last vestige of your war measures
from the statute-book.
Mr. FINLEY. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
Mr. McKINLEY. I cannot yield.
Mr. FINLEY. I desire simply to ask the gentleman to finish the sentence he
has read in part. I do not say he has garbled anything; but why does he not finish
reading the Sentence 2 ,
14
Mr. McKINLEY. I have not garbled at all. If the gentleman from Kentucky,
[Mr. BLACKBURN, J who is now in the chair, or my collegue, [Mr. FINLEY] wants
the entire *ch read and I can have my time extended for that purpose, I shonld
be very glad.
Mr. § LEY. I merely ask for the completion of the sentence.
The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. BLACKBURN.) If the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Mc-
KINLEY] will permit the present occupant of the chair he will ask that the gentle-
man read, not the entire speech, but the sentence, instead of part of a sentence.
Mr. McKINLEY. What sentence is it?
The CHAIRMAN. The last one referred to by the gentleman.
f Mr. McKINLEY. Have you, sir, the whole speech? if so, I will gladly read
urther.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not a copy at hand.
Mr. McKINLEY. I would not do the gentleman any injustice for the world.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will furnish a copy to the gentleman.
Mr. McKINLEY. The gentleman from Kentucky is one of those brave, cour-
ageous me: who speak the sentiments of his party and does not cover them up.
[Laughter and applause on the republican side.] We know just what he means. I
repeat his language :
We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last vestige of your war measures from:
the Statute-book.
They have already entered upon their unholy work; they are engaged in it now.
Only the other day, and while the Army bill was being considered, the gentleman
from Virginia, [Mr. TUCKER, one of the able and distinguished men of this House,
proposed an amendment repealing section 1218 of the United States Statutes. What
is the section the repeal of which he demands? Let me read it :
No persons who have served in any capacity in the military, naval, or civil service of the so-
called Confederate States, or of either of the States, in insurrection during the late rebellion,
shall be appointed to any position in the Army of the Uuited States.
The Army list is to be opened and revised, so that men who served in the con-
federate army, who for four years fought to destroy this Government, shall be placed
upon that list as commissioned officers. Ay, more, the men who were in our Army
before the war as commissioned officers, who were edjucated at the public expense,
who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and when the
nation was threatened with danger resigned their commissions and forsook the flag,
are to be eligible for reappointment to that Army again. Are we quite ready for
this 2
This is not all. On the 13th of February, 1878, the Chairman of the Committee
on Invalid Pensions of the Forty-fiſth Congress [Mr. RICE] reported to the House,
with the sanction of a majority of that commit5ee, a biil repealing section 4716 of
the United States Statutes. Let me read the section to be repealed :
No money on account of pension shall be paid to any person, or to the widow, children, or
heirs, of any deceased person, who in any manner voluntarily engaged in, or aided or abetted,
the late rebellion against the authority of the United States.
And the same bill contained the following affirmative legislation :
SEC. 7. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby. authorized and required to
restore to the pension-roll the names of all invalid pensioners now living who were stricken
therefrom on account of disloyalty, and pay them pensions from the 25th day of December
1868, at º gate which they would have been entitled to had they not been dropped from the
penSIOn-roll. &
These are some of the war measures which are to be “wiped out ’’ from the
statute-book. These are some of the degrading badges which are to be torn off.
These are only a foretaste of the war measures which are to be wiped out and
of the peace measures which are to be enacted. I am not surprised that, speaking
in the same spirit, the Southern States, a newspaper published in Okolona, Missis-
sippi, should say:
Let the Federal brigadiers take back seats in the work of restoration. The Republic has
no further use for the Lincoln hirelings.
By the way, Yankees, don’t it m : ke you feel queer to think that we've defeated you fel-
lows after aii and captured the capital?
15
Have they “after all ” captured this country? Have they “come back to
rule ** 2
The first fruits of their dominion are not assuring to the country, and will not,
I am certain, incline the people to clothe them with still greater power. Threat-
ened revolution will not hasten it ; extra sessions, useless and expensive, will not
accelerate it. Threat and menace, disturbing the business interests of the country,
will only retard it. It will come when your party have shown that you deserve it.
When you have demonstrated that the financial, industrial, and business interests
of the nation are safer and wiser in your hands than any other, and, more than all,
when you have demonstrated that free government will not perish in your keeping,
it will come then, and not before. I hope, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will
not be insisted upón. It is wrong in itself; it endangers free government. I be-
lieve the method proposed under the circumstances I have already designated is
revolutionary. There is no necessity for such haste. The law can have no force
and effect until 1880, except in the State of California. If the amendment must
be passed, let it come in the ordinary course of legislation. There will be ample
time at the regular session next winter and before any other Federal elections will
be held.
The country is not asking for it. Business will suffer and is suffering every
day from the agitation of a continued extra session of Congress. Uncertainty in
legislation is the terror to all business and commercial interests, and this uncer-
tainty exists and will continue so long as we remain in session. Let us remove it.
Let us pass the appropriation bills, simple and pure. Let us keep the Executive
Department in motion. Let the courts of the United States go on and clear up
their already overcrowded dockets. Let the representatives of the Government
abroad, upon whom our commercial relations with other nations so largely depend,
be not crippled. Give the pensioners of the Government their well-earned and
much-needed pensions. Let the Army be clothed, provisioned, and paid. Do this,
striking out all political amendments from the appropriation bills, adjourn speedily,
and give the country that peace and rest which will be promotive of the public
good. When we have done this we have evidenced the wisdom of statesmen and
the work of patriots. [Great applause on the republican side..] Let the people,
then, the final arbiter, the source of all power, decide the issue between us.

3. * :: **
• *::"..., , ,
**, ſ°,
raº.
ș
*** …»
ººº ！ »
|
33
|
|
<Ç
GJ
it
Q
i
*
*';'）; }{
* *
* »
***
* †
*
*t
15 O
trºº
***~~~,
|
|
|
X …*）
**…*…！ ;º, &#* * ..…
ºf %ſ'，！ſ,!, : „-ſ“. :
*** ¿?. . . . . .^ -; 4 ,§.: „', ！”
Ķ;:*ae*, *） ） * .*? º. . »»-:+ *
3. （* º.）; ∞, -ſšķğ,gºž, * （º.ſ. çº, （...）• ！ ！ ！ ». *»* … u· · · · · ·|-
· * * * · · ***…*.*;;+.• • • • • • •-- -* , e
:：:::：&.*, ſ°，*..*~:~~;ſºſ*** -->,^;$-） ,.*;;~~, ...，', ，''];
§¶* * ·× ×· • ×* „… & ? * * , • •… ºryº ： »
§）,''，'',''）;！rºſºvë* .* ‘’’.-
ºſº， ºs ;;* . :::** ģ«ķ. ， ， ,
„**#'>';'）;...', ， ，
.*
• • • • • •s）, º
:。、、。（.*v^º , +, -* •
ș !* * * * _***~.
ſły* ,ſy ſ * * · * *
wº k.s. »tº º 3;：• s’.
y,e‚ ’ , ** * （.*;¿¿.*
, **,·'）,''，*** ！!！* * ? …?
*:\ſ*:）*.
...， ¿ºs,
* } * * * * ?
;“}， ºſſºſ
ºg }
|-… * &
șț¢，
*** ?.*¿.*.* ***»ºſ-&#ffff;" a
*...*?！?a ſº ſ, $'， ）; }）;*...！ …; ;
*, ， ， ， ;-） ?;<s :）！！!· · ·:
* * $]*$, șºſ… i . （ §. 3）:
+::： , **, º*...;
:::::::
… . . . ）?”
- *sº. È-
+ *»， sº
&
|-¿•
。 、
, №.
*, *, *.x:
*:::: *.
* > * *
'. ， & （-
•） * *（）, īſºs.
{ X， 3;&#și
$*…***
! *
§ 2.） ??
× × × ×.
→ř.”…
£&） ; ≤T,·º'，
;*&vši （;-）*~*~§ 4º ;）--> ~~}.*? º ¿?
ºrº ſè,..“, º.ſ.*?? º ¿.*¿. . . ... *
* ... * * * , ， ; * * *----！“…&*）'）”. （ §…“
ſ : * * *→· &&*ę ž. * * * ;
~~）; }3§... , ;）, ±√（√, ， , ， º
gº »|-“-， º-~~~~（ºº ººººº
“ . & .
… :º） …’ （’ae
***** ;
+ '，
*** ·,≤）
*... & ?,
* ,·
, '.^ *\'.
„ , ， , ，
·*** • . ; &
, ， , ; , ***
{* ,
: yº t \;
ç:： -----
*3;..."."
* - x}
|ſi'. №stºry
», «º ~ ?• . . ， *
, ， ， ， , ，
*****
} •！”.
*:', ，'$'
5 + · · · * *
****
• *sę
（; , , , ，,,%，，，* * ·
*** Č （Ž） · … •
*** .*?>,* * *%ſ*.
w śſe; * * , ！
ș
·**
* ,
, , º º
…: ''）;， 3
ſº v ſº, * · · ·
}}
ș}*...*..** -, *，
• ！
• • •
* .* * · * *, *3-
;:***\#};}-xº.'，...º k;！,
-*§ čºº, *）
º ae,‘）.~）;
: vºs'ș * **
# .. *ae
-*
•****ſ* * * * , , ， ，;，,,, ，,，**. №
};##, }čx??-??????） ;
& * ,
#
* …
！~）} ）*
ſ. № și, și* →*
!\， ，*, ， ）;
... * * ,
• • * *
~ ！ »
&’ 33.
（, ， ， , ，
*** …, -ě
& .xze as
• W.
§ . . Ș -
*（?）,
; （º.ſ.）
', , ，
*） º.ſ.· ſ · · · ·:·
• r« , ， ， -ſ, --★ →
: + + +, ·
§ ' ， ...", e
�
}}
----* · *a „º * *
5T， ** * ·, ±și-ae, ſº :... ！! !！ !!！??? º.
¿?.ěz, čº）,} & {...?:）-- （ º ; , ***
±5, ±,±），-* №, º*， , ， ，
ç***: •• [º, “...º… },
-~.*** &
„“, ** y,
* *
.*
-,ț¢”.
£
）; ... ſº
ș， º . № ！！ ！！ :
！ſt;¿?，„'， ！ :）.
};{};:（*_* !! !！！，,，*ºſ: º ;
→ºr , ,
º.
„ſaeºs… :（ .
~* * * * ---- «...*…--•
*** -
&& ！º----
* * * · · 3 · 3
r = < ** **,
.*§§
,，ſº:§§§:ſſ.（…”…
;--***

§§
¿?-*********-->-----，。
§§§§§3）;$$·-***）3’¿-·-
··-：：: ~~~~§§§§§§§¿¿.*·--~ ·…-§§§
·aeg：¡¿·-→¿§§§§§§§
§§ſae; š， * ģšț¢&ſ|ק§§§§§§§§§
≡¿?、、、。8§§§§§§§
|-，ţţ*：'， ， ， ， ！··
§。§§· ^ ~~~~--~--~·¿
、、、、、、、、。§§∞§ 8ç.， ， ，¿、、。§§§
șae¿،…*…* -->→*:№， №ğ&&
§§§§-· §§§§）;¿··ș;&###§
|-§§§№- -§§
№
¿¿.§ 3
§;&* º *ſ*...$≡
， ，،§§§
。
§§§§
§§
§§
cº,
º
:
§§
ſº：
:
§:
8
§
§
¿
::：
،
§§
§
-§¶√≠§:§§，，
§§¿·
¿
¿
¿ $¢&&&
ſºț¢ £3%，
§§§§
§:
¿§§ -
，Ķſ№, š， ž （3，8·&&
∞§§§·- -& ſae
* * Sº tº
º:
à-ſº
º; ;
#
¿
-§§§§§§§§
*ś
ſaeae
·s·sº;········
r.， * 3. **? º: «...„-ºtſºº,
<.> * x）^）. *s*… * * *sr
！ ¡ ¿ † （?）;…&.***
$ x:ſfºrçºſ». №, ſa 3， …
§§） * *（）. "--~）;
$. （?-?:（.* 4, …
*: * A'ſ, º ’’ſ,];
“ſayº . ; * * .* # , *-- « * * *, *Tº …
ſºğ???, ¿?f.， , ， š, *
„ſ， “” （:; ， , ,,，,， ， , ** *** …
*3,4 %， ...*.* * *« ...** ·, ſº
--.º.º.
ș ? .*
* * *
* * *
„». **
y №. 3. ºž, ºº s-º~
* * * $ ） » +* \\ & &* y. „
Ș， ' '）;- ¿? - ¿?
→: № ſe ?-
¿r; （3$ſ;** … ? .
！ºğ,*****¿.*.
， . . . ; ** * *
¿§. 7. ***… º.º. ,
g * *-~ “， „**ș: ?, { * ~ * && x ;
x***į, ų.º.º. º.， … ...»r~
-ºğz.ſº «}, … ***
&&
* -
; ; * , *
3.
. , ， ; * · · ·,≤）
?À ț¢,•
ſ', ' && ' .? ... º, , ）,
J '..? º ¿?”Ń.
ș
! Sº a
№.. ; * * · * ?
*ș” ,
* # %ſ',…ºv
ș* …?
, ，.-:-
·,·,≤',''，',
· ·, * * *
* · * *
*** - * , , „. “s’ º
. （ ?）&' .
.*' + ... • ? *******
<º ： ?
* * * · ·ya！! *
Å
· ** * .
{
«;，
-"?· · · · · · · >}
»*?
»… “**… .
įžº ~; g*§.-* ~~~~
·º’. （* ???.· , ~ ~~~~ .. •
�?·&s,...… * f **** * ſ;
<ș** ~ ~ ° « ºr» # * ...,
, ，：：:*ș};
... “????--
x.** • 3
%% • .§, |, }， ſº *
*>.*;，» ++;-）
* '',Jiſ .*?
ș? •*****…*…*
,，r:8， r,º）;
* ... * * * * * . ; ）. .
“;;, 43; '.'** → … * &
！ *** …, º șą º -· · ·:·º·:, , , .
„º
;º
y •
vººr ºs
??šų ř
„...”, „ “... * *
… * * * · · · · · ·
... º~ * * *„’ſ
ąsº ſº…º 3 ***
ș~）;
·+ · * *}
-; ººx • • • ¡ ¿?，
*** , ， , y（*, * ... ? .
«… * & ***
*** • • • • •
„** * * ?, ， ，
• xã * * * , ,
.….….* - * * * · *
~~~~）; ž.，
* * *-*:', ` * , , , , ， ！
, , ， ， , ， **1) ***
* * * *
\----
* ×-
* .
... x
* # * *r
،
· ·
* + r.º z
* *