Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1879 — Page 1

Olfa fflenwcratin L DEMOCRATIC ITEWSPAPEB PUBLISHED EVERT FRIDAY, -biTAMES W. MoEWEN. TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION. On« copy one yrar S l - 8 * Onn copy «lx months One copy throe months -®t tWAdvertislng rates on application

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

FOREIGN NEWS. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to assassinate the Czar of Russia, at St Petersburg. While he was taking his morning walk nefir the palace, four shots were fired at him. The Czar was unhurt The man who fired the shots was arrested by the crowd, which the firing attracted. A dispatch from Afghanistan says a bad feeling is growing against the British among all the tribes interested in the Khyber pass. They complain that the British are acting as though they intended to keep the pass in order to spy out the hill fastnesses. The Nihilists abducted the Governor of Charkoff, Russia, as hostage for leniency to prisoners. The American horse Parole won the Newmarket handicap, at London, beating Isonomy, Una and three others. Isonomy was the favorite, and Parole the last in the betting, A St. Petersburg dispatch says the name of the would-be assassin of the Czar is .Alexander Solovieff. He is a schoolmaster of Targphez, in the Government of Plaskov. He will bo tried by the highest criminal tribunals. The belief that the prisoner took poison is erroneous. He was severely injured by the populace, who would have killed him but for the police. The British have begun an advance movement in Afghanistan. A letter from the United States Consul at Tangiors gives a terrible account of the famine, cholera and typhus fever that have been raging in Morocco. In the city of Moroc•co the daily deaths from typhus ranged from 200 to 250. So great was the starvation and suffering that parents ate their children, and in other places the dead wore devoured by the living. • The cable reports further destructive fl'Mxts in Hungary.* In Russia, a ukase has been published ordering the appointment of a Governor General for six of the most populous districts in Russia, with perfectly despotic powers, exceeding those of a General in time of war. The President of the French republic has pardoned 800 more Communists.

DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE. LDewt. John P. Phair, recently hanged in Vermont, left a statement declaring his innocence, and that justice was not done him. A pedestrian named Lavelle, who started in a walking match at Woonsocket, R. 1., was taken ill on the track and died in a few hours. Christian Lester, of Morristown, N. J., fatally shot his wife and then killed himself. The Philadelphia Common Council has decided to send a committee to California to receive Gen. Grant, and the Assembly of New York nas passed a resolution to tender him the hospitalities of the State on his return. In the East river, at New York, the other day, a tug boat was run down and sunk by a steamer. Of ten mon on the tug, only five escaped. The daughter of William R. Townsend, a wealthy New York publisher, has created a stir in fashionable circles of the metropolis by marrying her father’s coachman. The young lady was well educated, and something of a society belle. West. A tornado swept over the town of Collinsville, 111., one day last week, destroying several buildings, unroofing and partially wrecking numerous others, killing one person, injuring many more, and half frightening the entire population out of their wits. Dr. John S. Parsons, a man of education and position at Yankton, D. T., has been hold in bonds of S3,WO for robbing the mails. He charges his fall to whisky. Advices from all parts of the Northwest concur as to the probability of Indian boHtilitios in that region this summer. Prairie fires are raging in the Indian country in the vicinity of Fort Stephenson, and causing intense alarm among the settlers. The office of the Illinois State Treasurer at Springfield was robbed, a few days ago, of a package of $5,000 by two sneak-thieves, who entered the office ostensibly for the purpose of getting a SI,OOO bill changed. The money was not missed until the sharpers had had made good their escape. There is stored in the grain elevators of Chicago (i,87(1,644 bushels of wheat, 2,858,965 bushels of corn, 380,132 bushels of oats, 240,947 bushels of rye, and 516,759 bushels of barley, making a total of 10,873,447 bushels, against 3,304,969 bushels at this period last year. A Kansas City (Mo.) dispatch says: “The total number of colored immigrants who have arrived in Wyandotte up to the present time is 1,771. Out of this number about 300 are in that city, dependent upon subscriptions fbr their subsistance. The sickness is increasing, and the committees are becoming tired and manifest less interest.” The jury in the Olive man-burning case at Hastings, Neb., returned a verdict of murder in the second degree against Olive and Fisher, and the Judge sentenced the prisoners to imprisonment for life at hard abor. The law recently passed by the Ohio Legislature to authorize the appointment of women as notaries public has been declared unconstitutional by the Attorney General o' the Stale. Dr. George St. Louis, under sentence of death at Fremont, Neb., committed suicide in his jail, on the eve of his execution, by shooting himself through the head. The steamship Great Republic was recently wrecked on the Pacific coast while attempting to enter the harbor of Astoria, Oregon, during a dark night. Ten of the crow were drowned in departing from the wrecked vessel oy the capsizing of a boat. Soutn. Ex-Congressman Smalls, of South Carolina, states that the negroes in that State have caught the emigration fever, and are only prevented from stampeding to Kansas by a lack of money. At a delegate convention of colored men of Arkansas, held at Little Rock the other day, resolutions were adopted affirming that, “as the colored citizens of Arkansas in many localities are not allowed the free enjoyment of their constitutional rights, they are desirous of emigrating to some other State or Territory where the elective franchise can be enjoyed unmolested,” and recommending the appoint ment of two colored Commissioners, under the National Emigration Aid Society, to select a suitable State or Territory. Denwood B. Hinds and Isaac D. James engaged in a shooting affray in the streets of Baltimore the other day, which ended in the death of James and the wounding of Hinds and a younger brother who was present and took part in the affray. A terrific tornado recently swept through the lower part of South Carolina, de-

The Democratic Sentinel.

JAS. W. MoEWEN Editor.

VOLUME HI.

stroying hundreds of houses and killing many people. In the village of Water boro more than 100 dwellings and all the churches were swept away. Three-fourths of the inhabitants are homeless. Fifteen persons were killed and many wounded. At Oakley, a station on the Northwestern railroad, all the negro houses were leveled and one negro killed, besides many hurt Similar casualties are reported from various points in the track of the tornado. POLITICAL POINTS. For the first time in eighteen years the Senate of the United States has a Democratic President pro tem. The Republican State Central Committee of lowa has issued a call for a State Convention at Des Moines on Wednesday, June 11, to nominate candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Judge of the Supreme Court The basis of representation is one delegate for each county, and, in addition thereto, one delegate for each 200 votes or fraction over 100 cast for Secretary of State last year. This will make a total of 772 delegates. The official returns of the recent State election in Michigan, though not complete, are sufficiently so as. to make certain a Republican majority of about 4,000. The total vote so far received : Campbell, Republican, for Justice of the Supreme Court, 182,000; Shipman, coalition, 128,000. The full official returns of the late election in Wisconsin show that Judge Cole, the Republican candidate for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, received a majority of 33,133 votes. Senator Conkling is said to have written a letter formally abandoning bis Presidential aspirations and favoring Gen. Grant ... .A straight Democrat has been elected over a Greenbacker, in the Texas district formerly represented by the late Mr. Schleicher. DOINGS OF CONGRESS. Debate on the Army Appropriation bill was opened In the Senate on the 14th. The pending question was on Mr. Blaine’s amendment prohibiting the appearance within a mile of a pollingplace of any person armed with a deadly weapon of any kind, and Mr. Blaine began the debate in a long speech, the first part of which was devoted to ridiculing the Democratic supposition of possible intimidation by the army ai an election. In South there were only 1,155 men—6o to each million of inhabitants. In some Southern States there were none at all. In North Carolina there were 30; in South Carolina, 120; in Georgia, 29; in Arkansas, 57; in Alabama. 32; in Louisiana. 231; and not one in Texas, outside of the border. Mr. Blaine concluded as follows: “I do not profess to know, Mr. President, what the President of the United States will do when these bills are presented to him, as I suppose in due course of time they will be. I certainly should never speak a solitary word of disrespect of the gentleman holding thatexal ted position, and I hope 1 shall not speak a word unbefitting the dignity of the office of Senator of the United States; but, as there has been speculaiion here and there on both sides as to what he would do, it seems to me that the dead heroes of the Union would rise from their graves If he should consent to be intimidated and outraged in his proper constitutional power by threats like these. All the war measures of Abraham Lincoln are to be wiped out, say leading Democrats. The Bourbons of France busied themselves, I believe, after the restoration in removing every trace of Napoleon’s power and grandeur, even chiseling the “N ” from public monuments raised to perpetuate his glory, but the dead man’s hand irom St. Helena reached out and destroyed them in their pride and in their glory. And I tell the Senators on the other side of this chamber, I tell the Democratic party North and South, South in the lead and North following, that this slow, unmoving finger of scorn from the tomb of the martyred President from the prairies of Illinois will wither and destroy them. “ 1 hough dead he speaseth. When you present these bills with these threats to a living President who bore the commission of Abraham Lincoln, and who served with honor in the army of the Union which Lincoln restored and preserved, I can think only of one appropriate response from his lips or his pen. He should say to you with all the scorn befitting his station: ’‘ls tby servant a dog that he should do this thing?" Mr. Wallace, in reply to Mr. Blaine, said the bill makes no threat to deny supplies. Let us look at this subject of coercion. The President, Senate, and House are independent, each in its sphere. Each possesses a negative upon the other. The Senate and House each has an absolute veto upon the other, while that of the Executive is limited. If the Senate refuses to pass a House bill because of objectionable matter, and makes its removal a condition of its passage, it coerces the House to that extent. It has this right. It is not revolutionary. It exercises its constitutional right to judge of the measure. Tills right is vital; the check invaluable. The same is true of the Executive negative upon the Legislative power. If the Executive dissents, and, on reconsideration there are not two-thirds, the Legislative branch may decline to act. It has this right or it has no independence of action. It alone for itself must judge of the fitness, necessity, and constitutionality of the measure proposed. It cannot coerce the Executive nor can the Executive coerce it. Each is responsible to the people for its conclusions and actions, and must act in full view of that tribunal. If the Legislative branch could be coerced to act in this mode, the will of the majority would be controlled by the minority. The patronage of an unscrupulous President and minority could dictate legislation. No such purpose is intended by the constitutional negative. In the House, Mr. Ladd, oi Maine, attempted to introduce a financial bill, but Mr. Conger, of Michigan, and other Republicans objected, and caused so much discussion and delay in the proceedings that the morning hour expired before this or any other financial measure could bs brought before the House. Upon the assembling of the Senate on the 15th, the Secretary, before reading the journal, read a note from Vice President Wheeler, stating that the dangerous illness of ffiis sister had called him away from Washington, and it would be necessary for the Senate to elect a President pro tem. Mr. Bayard offered the following: That, in the absence of the Vice President, A. G. Thurman be and he is hereby chosen President of the Senate pro tem.” Mr. Anthony moved to substitute the name of Thomas W. Ferry. Disagreed to—yeas, 18: nays, 28—and the resolution passed; Mr. Thurman was conducted to the chair by Mr. Ferry, the former remarking, on the way thither, “Turn about is fair play.” Mr. Thurman, on taking the chair, said: “Senators, it is only necessary for me to say, in fewest possible words, that I sincerely thank you for this mark of your The Army Appropriation bill was taken up, and Mr. Logan addressed the Senate. He thought the question now before that body more important than any other that had arisen since 1861, when the same sentiments which prompted the present legislation were expressed by many of the same men who are now uttering them, and led to war. He denounced the proposed legislation as bad in itself, and as being attempted by unparliamentary practices. Mr. Beck followed Mr. Logan. He said the Democracy was warned of an appeal to Cmsar. They intend to appeal to the people before Closer comes, before the Rubicon is crossed, and the cry is, “ Aiea jacta est.” It is to prevent Ciesar from coming that they desire the soldiers to be taken from the polls. As to the small number of troops east of Omaha, spoken of by the gentleman from Maine (Blaine), Mr. Beck said when it was determined that Louisiana should be carried by force, 4,500 men were sent there. It was easy to concentrate troops when necessary for such a purpose. When this law was passed there were no John Davenports and such people to take command of the army. The House passed the Senate bill for the construction of a refrigerating ship for the disinfection of vessels and cargoes. Mr. Chalmers, of Mississippi, arose to a personal explanation, and caused to be read extracts from newspapers reciting the old charges of cruelty and massacre of colored people at the battle of Fort Pillow, and connecting him (Chalmers) with the same. Mr. Chalmers asked for the appointment of a special committee of seven, a majority of which shall be composed of Republicans, to investigate the truth of the statements made. The resolution was, on the suggestion of Gen. Garfield, postponed for the present. The House then went into committee of the whole on the Legislative bill, the pending question being on Mr. Bragg’s motion to insert a clause repealing the law creating the Southern Claims Commission. After considerable debate the amendment was defeated—yeas, 65; nays, 118. A hill was offered by Mr. De La Matyr providing for the substitution of United States legal-tender paper money for national-bank notes. Mr. Beck concluded his remarks on the Appropriation bill on the 16th. He read the resolu tion heretofore offered by Mr. Hoar denouncing the alleged Democratic programme as unconstitutional and revolutionary, and then said the Democrats were not proposing either to coerce the President or to prevent the President from coercing them. Nor were they setting up revolutionary measures or endeavoring to pass acts which would deprive the President from using the army for constitut onal purposes. All they proposed to do, as would be seen by the sixth section of the bill, was to say to the President he should not recall the troops from the

RENSSELAER. JASPER COUNTY, INDIANA, FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1879.

frontier, or where they wero placed to prevent an invasion from abroad, to be used merely for political purposes. Mr. Beck retorted upon the ReSublicans the charge of revolutionary action y referring to the law of *6B. which, he said, was so framed that acts of Congress declared by any Circuit Court of the United States null and void were sustained unless two-thirds of the Judges of the Supreme Court should agree in pronouncing them unconstitutional. He also referred to the manner in which the Thirteenth amendment, abolishing slavery, was ratified, as affording another example of Republican revolution. He quoted numerous precedents to show that it was not unusual to attach legislation on general appropriation bills. Among them it was seen that the law relating to Supervisors and Deputy Marshals was enacted on an Appropriation bill by a Republican Congress, and that the celebrated Drake amendment, which annulled the decisions of the Supreme Court, was made part of an appropriation bill. Mr. Dawes next addressed the Senate. He referred to the dangerous theory of State’s rights which could be seen underlying these attempts to deprive the General Government of the right given it by the constitution to regulate the elections for Representatives. He denounced that theory, and upheld the idea that we are a nation, not a confederation oi States. Mr. Dawes said his friends on the other side ought not to prate about purity of the ballot-box until it was forgotten bow 16,000 Republican vot rs in the State of New York were wiped out in 1868. in accordance with a circular sent out beforehand in the name of their chief. 8. J. Tilden, who afterward did not know anything about it, just as he does not know anything about every other political iniquity that has been transacted in his name and in his house. He supposed it was only a question of time when the threat to wipe out all the war measures. and restore the old order of things, would bo fulfilled; but he had felt called upon to raise his protest as a representative of a State whose people would always be found in the van of any movement necessary for the defense of tiue republican principles. The House completed the money parts of the Legislative bill, and entered upon the political discussion. Mr. Lewis opened the debate with a legal argument against the Election laws. He denied that the South was solid for any illegal or unconstitutional purpose, or out of antagonism to the North. The Southern people needed help and sympathy too much for that. Ths Senate continued the discussion of the Army bill on the 17th. Mr. Voorhees said the protection of the ballot-box had been wrested from the proper local officers, and given to corrupt Federal officials. The spirit that dictated this law was distrust of the people and their capacity for self-gov-ernment under free elections. The whole power of (he constitution was thus perverted. Die people would resent this insulting tyranny when the facts should be clearly presented to them, and a righteous sense of resistance would spring up in their breasts. He hoped the people would read this law until it should become an abhorrence to the public mind. There was no American who was not liable to arrest for no other reason than that existing in the mind of a Supervisor or Deputy Marshal, thus placing every person’s liberty at the mercy of party malice or hate. Every ruffian acting in such capacity was to determine a man’s rights at the polls. Mr. Voorhees said that it was a satire on free government to say that suffrage should be exercised at the point of the bayonet. Nr. Teller followed Mr. Voorhees. He said the Democratic cry seemed to be for free ballot. All the frauds on the ballot for the last thirty years, he said, emanated with, or had been to the advantage of, the Democratic party. He cited the frauds in Kansas in 1852 and 1854, in Louisiana in 1861, and in New York city in 1868. He did not desire to misrepresent the South, but would only state the facts in regard to that section which, in his opinion, made Federal supervision necessary to a fair election. He then reviewed at a considerable length the testimony taken before the committee of which he was Chairman, and declared that even white Democrats in good standing testified to lawlessness aud intimidation at the elections to prevent colored people from voting as they desired in Louisiana aud South Carolina. Debate was also continued in the House on the political amendments to the Legislative Appropriation bill. Mr. Kelley spoke first. While disclaiming partisanship and deprecating inflammatory speeches.he warned the Democrats that if they adjourned because of a veto, and permitted our light-houses to go out on our coasts, and neglected to enact necessary measures, they would make the North as solid as it was from 1861 to 1865. He said, too, that the South would not be solid in the event of a violation of the constitution, and that the two Greenbackers from the South, which prevented it from being solid now, were oidy the forerunners of the break hi the solid South which would result from the execution of the present Democratic programme. Mr. Carlisle, of Kentucky, made a strong legal argument for the Democratic side in favor of the constitutionality ot the Democratic position, and in conclusion said: Disclaiming any intention to make appeals to passion; disclaiming any intention to excite partisan feelings or to distract the judgment of people's representatives on this very exciting question, I say to the gentleman on the other side, not in any spirit of arrogance, but with all the deliberation and earnestness which the gravity that this great subject demands, that these laws must be repealed, and that tills power of the Executive to control the election of the people’s representatives must bo taken away.

Mosers. Randolph, of New Jersey, and Groome, of. Maryland (Democrats) addressed the Senate on the 18th in support of the political amendments to the Army bill. In the House, the Legislative Appropriation bill being under discussion, Mr. McKinley (Republican),of Ohio, spoke in opposition to the proposed repeal of the general Election laws. Ho denounced the legislation as a bold and wanton attempt to wipe from the law every protection of the ballotbox, and to surrender it into the unholy hands of hired “repeaters ” and ballot-box staffers at the North, and of tissue ballot-cheats at the South. Mr. Burrows (Republican), of Michigan, was the next speaker. He said that if gentlemen on the other side were really anxious to preserve peace and the purity of elections, they would be the last to attempt to tear down the only remaining national fortress reared for that purpose. Did they desire an honest registration? These laws providedit. Did they want a pure ballot? These laws secured it. Did they want a fair count? These laws insured it. Did they want true returns? These laws enjoined it. Did they want l>eace and oraer at the polls? These laws commanded it. There was nothing in those laws that was a terror to any man save one who had committed or was meditating an attack on the purity of elections. Mr. ColYroth (Democrat), of Indiana, said that an honest election and a fair election, where the voter could deposit his vote untrammeled and unawed, was the palladium of American liberty. The teaching of statesmen, from the earliest history down until the Republican party had come into power, had been an unbroken declaration that the Federal power had no authority to interfere in elections, but that each S’ate should regulate the manner of holding its elections. He maintained that the ballot was the weapon with which a freeman was to protect his personal liberty and his civil rights. The gentleman from Ohio (Garfield) had sounded the war tocsin and waved the “bloody shirt,” and the whole camp had danced. On hearing the bitter denunciation from the other side, he had ventured to look over there, and he had been delighted to see that his Republican friends were not actually enraged, but were as peaceful and pleasant in appearance as a May morning. Mr. Dickey (Democrat), of Ohio, said the issue was squarely made, the parties were squarely divided, and the question was whether these objectionable laws should be repealed. To thatquestion the Democratic party here and the Democratic party throughout the nation answered, “Yes;" The constitution required it, the freedom of elections and the liberties of the people demanded it. The Senate was not in session on the 19th. speech against the repeal of the Election laws. The bill to provide for the exchange of subsidiary silver coin for legal-tender money was discussed. Mr. De La Matyr filed a petition embodying a bill to establish “greenback currency,” and to relieve the financial distress of the country by granting aid to certain companies incorporated by State authority for works of internal improvement. It provides that the Secretary of the Treasury be required to have prepared notes and obligations of the United States to the aggregate of $1,00(1,900,600, to be known as “ greenback currency.” for general circulation in amounts and form as the bill provides, which notes or obligations shall constitute a legal tender for all debts, and receivable for all United States Government dues.

Banning Down a Black Mountain Wolf.

Mr. S. L. Kirtley, the proprietor of the hotel at Brownington, on Friday last started out to summon witnesses who lived on Hillegras prairie, in the southeastern part of this county, and, while riding leisurely along, he espied a large black wolf in a wheat field close by. Spurring his horse to its utmost speed, he at once gave chase, and for miles over the prairies and through fields, with here and there a small skirt of timber, on they sped, the wolf in the lead, but the brave rider and dauntless little horse always in sight, and often close upon the wolf’s heels. It was a reckless ride over fences and through farms, with never a pause for breath. As they passed farm houses, the rider shouted for help, and others joined in the chase, until the number of pursuers was a dozen or more. Still the little horse kept the lead, while one after another of the fresh steeds fell to the rear.

“A Firm Adherence to Correct PrinciDles.”

After a run of twenty or twenty-five miles, and when within a quarter of a mile of Lowry City, a small village in St. Clair county, the race ended, and the little horse ran directly oyer the wolf, knocking it down. Kirtley was unarmed, and, springing from his saddle, grasped the vicious animal by the motfth, pinioning its jaws with a death grip. Men came to his aid, and a strong cord was bound around the wolfs mouth, rendering it harmless. The cords were unintentionally drawn so tight that the animal died of strangulation and exhaustion shortly after being captured. It proved to be a full-grown black mountain wolf, fully three feet high, and weighing probably 100 pounds.— Henry County (Mo.) Democrat.

PROMINENT PEOPLE.

Jeff Davis is 71 years of age. Senator Bruce is very busy at his study of law. Colfax cleared SIO,OOO by his lectures last year. The top of Gen. Garfield’s head is entirely hairless. Charles A. Dana, of the New York Sun, receives a salary of $12,000. Gen. W. 8. Bosecbans is manufacturing safety powder in San Francisco. Congressmen Weaver and Gillette, of lowa, room together at Washington. Senator Morgan, of Alabama, is 5 feet 8 inches in height and weighs 153 pounds. Senator Morrill, of Vermont, is 6 feet 1 inch in height and weighs 196 pounds. Senator Paddock, of Nebraska, is 5 feet 9| inches in height and weighs 182 pounds. Senator Plumb, of Kansas, is 5 feet II inches in height and weighs 171 pounds. Senator McPherson, of New Jersey, is 5 feet 10 inches in height and weighs 170 pounds. Senator Randolph, of New Jersey, is 6 feet 2 inches in height and weighs 185 pounds. Senator Thurman reads more foreign books than any other Senator in Washington. George Bancroft, the historian, continues daily exercise for his health in the open air at Washington. His friends claim that Gen. FitzJohn Porter is vindicated, while his enemies take an opposite stand. Senator Matt Carpenter, who has not been well for some time, contemplates going to Colorado for the benefit of his health. The Kansas City Times says that Gen. James Shields, ex-Senator from Missouri, is very ill of bronchitis at the Sisters’ Hospital in that city. Field Marshal von Manteuffel will be made Governor General of Alsace Lorraine, the idea of nominating a Royal Prince having been abandoned. Sitting Bull has seen Puck’s picture of Senator Bumside, and he is perfectly crazy to get at the man he says “ has a scalp on each side of his face.” Joaquin Miller wears his trousers outside of his boots again, and it is thought that he is contemplating the idea of escaping back to his native wilds. Old Simon Cameron has become a thorough woman-hater. All his transactions with his washerwoman are now conducted through his attorney. He won’t allow a hotel waiter to wear an apron in his presence. Senator Don Cameron has' leased for a term of years the handsome Ohiostone mansion of ex-Gov. Shepherd, on Farragut square, in Washington city. It is probably the most elegant-ly-furnished private house in Washington. Bishop Whittle, of the Episcopal diocese of Virginia, has issued a pastoral letter forbidding the use of flowers in church decorations, even at Easter, and disapproving of evergreens at Christmas. • King Cetywayo is described as a black head-ringed man, resembling his father, the late King Panda, and firm in flesh. He is large, but his body is firm, not flabby, like the bodies of other large men among the Zulus. His favorite attire is a spotted blanket. Prof. David Swing is said to have a telephone leading from his study to the houses of several of his parishioners and intimate friends. He does most of his pastoral visiting by aid of this apparatus. The only care required is to so arrange the switchboard as to send his message always to the party for whom it is intended. Prof. Andrew D. White, our new Minister to Germany, was the second recipient of the DeForest medal at Yale College for combined excellence in writing and elocution. His subject “ The Diplomatic History of Modern Times,” has a suggestive meaning in connection with the position now held by him.

Too Near His Figure.

On one occasion, when Gen. Butler was in command at New Orleans, a Colonel up in the Red river region made application for a furlough, which was refused him. Soon after, the Colonel left his command without permission, and went to New Orleans, where he was arrested and put in irons as a deserter. Tpon an intimation that he wished to make an explanation, Gen. B. had him brought to his headquarters. “ Well, sir,” said the General, sternly, “ what have you to say in explanation of your conduct? ” “ Well, General, there are two Jews up yonder who have some cotton they want to get through my lines. First they offered me SSOO, which I refused. Then they offered SI,OOO, then $5,000, then $25,000, and at last they offered $100,000; and I tell you, General, they were getting so near my figure, I thought I’d better leave ! ” —Editor’s Drawer, in Harper’s Magazine for May.

Why Should He?

E. C. Stedman sings in Scribner, “Why should I fear to sip the sweets of each red lip?” Why? Because, Mr. Stedman, you have a conviction that the gloomy-looking old gentleman in the background, with blood in his eye, and a cane, like the angel of death, in his hand, will make a poultice of you if you do any such sampling while he is in reach.— Burlington Hawk-Eye. Madame Bonaparte left $1,400 to buy a suitable monument.

BAYONETS AT THE POLLS.

The Great Struggle for Free Elections, v . Kpcecli of Senator Wallace, of Penn»ylvania. The Army bill being under consideration in the United States Senate, Mr. Wallace, yi Pennsylvania, spoke as follows: j This bill contains but a single disputed section. To that the Senator from Maine addressed himself; to that we address ourselves. There is but a single issue presented by this bill, to that I shall try to confine myself. All that hear me and the country know that the convulsive a great people in a tremendous civil war have caused many departures from those vital principles that he at the base of all civil liberty. The history of our race and the precedents of the past point them out as essential elements in the preservation of our own freedom, and its most earnest struggles ever have been and ever will be made for their safety. The necessities of the hour may cause a free people to bear for a time the subjection ot the civil to the military power, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus or the presence of armed troops at election polls, but these must pass away with the necessity that gave them birlh. They can never be crystallized upon the necks of Anglo Saxons. The single issue involved in this bill is, shall the executive arm of the Government longer possess the power to place troops at the election polls? Their presence there or the power to place them there is equally a menace to the people and a departurefrom the right of free elections. That is the issue, the sole, the only issue that is in this bill. We make no other; we will be diverted not from this.

The mere presence of -armed troops at the polls is a menace to individual liberty. Tu shadow of the power of armed men is in itself a threat, and no free people will bear it. It was one of the struggles between Ch tries I and his first three Parliaments that he should yield to them the right he claimed to quarter troops upon the people. Parliament refused to give him the money aud he was to send troops into the country districts end compel them to be quartered and supported bj the people without authority of law. The Commons placed it in their bills; they formu Jatid and crystallized it in the petition of right, and they made the King yield to their just demands in behalf of the people. This right and privilege is registered in the bill of rights of nearly every constitution in all this land. The power to quarter troops upon the people was wrung from the Kingly power of Great Britain by placing it upon bills under which he was vote! supplies to carry on a war for the Palatinate with Spain. Before they would yield him those. upplies they compelled him to agree to a concession of this greatr ght,and the right to be free from such intrusion became fixed and certain. The corrective right inregard to free election and the absence of tr >ops from the polls is found still further back in English history. The menace of armed troops at the polls was Erohibited by a statute in the reign of George [., and it recites the existence of the right to be free from this menace as old as the time o! Edward I. In the thirteenth century, nearly 600 years ago, the race from whom we obtain our libeity and law, from whose loins we mainly sprung, asserted the doctrine that this right of free election belonged to the people and ought not to be jeopardized. It was a right wrung, absolutely wrung, from the hand of power in the tme of Edward L It was resurrected in the time of George 11., and then enacted into law in 1735. Let us see what was done. I shall not read the statute. A law was passed in 1735 which forbade the prc.-euce of armed troops within two miles of the election polls. Subsequently, in 1741, the executive power (forgetting the existence of this statute) and—- “ During the corrupt administration of Sir Robert Walpole, at an election held for the city of Westminster, under an order signed by three magistrates of-/the county, a body of armed soldiers was marched up and stationed in the churchyard of Saint Paul, Covent Garden, in the vicinity of the poll; and, on Jhis being shown to the House of thSy passed a resolution affirming ‘that the' presence of a regular body of armed soldiers at an election of members to serve in Parliament, is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the lawsand constitution of this kingdom. ’ The High Bailiff was taken into custody by order of the House, and the three magistrates' who signed the order were brought to the bar and reprimanded by the Speaker, upon their knees, as the House had directed; and, after this, the House passed a vote of thanks to the Speaker for his reprimand of the delinquents, and directed the same to be printed. ’’—Erightly's Leading Cases tn Elections. 603.604. Sir, thia right, thus vindicated, is a part of our system. These privileges are a part of our own free liberties. They come to us with the system of laws under which we live. They belong to us as an integral part of our system of free elections, and we would be false to our highest duty if we should fail to protect them and assert their existence. I now quote from McCrary on Elections, section 418. He says : “ There can, however, be no doubt but that the law looks with great disfavor upon anything like an interference by the military with the freedom of an election. An armed force in the neighborhood of the polls is almost of necessity a menace to the voters, and an interference with their freedom and independence, and, if such armed force be in the hands of or under the control of the partisan friends of any particular candidate or set of candidates, the probability of an improper influence becomes still stronger.” This proposition does not stand alone on the thought of taking out of this section the authority for the presence of armed troops at the polls under Federal law, but it goes beyond this and finds its reason and its root in the right of the States to control this subject entirely. The control of free elections, the guarantee for their existence, does not belong to the Federal Government; it belongs to the States themselves and always has belonged there. The constitution of almost every State in this country contains in its bill of rights a guarantee of free elections. The States controlled the franchise. With them, both before and since the formation of the constitution, was vested the power and the right to guard the purity and the freedom of elections. Let the Senators from New England and the Senators from the great West, ana the Senators from the Middle States and the South take up the bills of rights of their respective States and see what is guaranteed. In nearly all of them the guarantee is that all elections shall be free. Here is the crystallization of the doctrine that comes to us from the time of Edward L, which found voice in the time of Charles L and George IL, and is now one of the privileges and rights of this people. In Pennsylvania, as long since as 1803, its rulers enacted this statute: “No body of troops, being regularly employed in the army of the United States or of this State, shall appear and be present, either armed or unarmed, at any place of election within this State, during tfie time of said election.” This wholesome provision was re-enacted in 1839, and it is now a part of the law of that Commonwealth. The enactment of this followed the time of the Alien and Sedition law. The necessity had come for the people to enact it Jefferson was in power here, his party was in control in that great State, and public sentiment found vent in the statute that protected at the polls the citizens from armed interference or control in any way by Federal or other troops. New York crystallized this right in her statutes as early as 1818, and prohibited the military from appearing or exercising on election day, or during ten days preceding it; and the same is the law in Wisconsin. Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island forbid their military from parading on election day, and imposed penalties for its violation. Virginia, by her constitution, exempted the voter from military service on election day, and denied the franchise to every non-commissioned officer and private in the United States army or seaman or marine in the United States navy, while Maryland prescribed that no officer should muster or march any troops within view of the polls on election day. I take the constitution of Pennsylvania of 1873 and I read from the biU of rights: “ Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the rights of suffrage.” This is embodied, too, in the constitutions of Colorado and Missouri, enacted since, almost in word and letter. But, sir, the Federal constitution has not a syllable on that subject Neither in its main nor in the original amendments which secured the Überties of the people is there a word upon

the subject of free electtons. The Federal Government has no control over the subject; and they did not attempt to assert any such right in reference to it The control of electi ;bs and the guarantee for them belonged to th© States; there it was vested and there it is to remain. Prior to 1864 the only attempt at its control hero was When John Marshall, in the House of Representatives, in the year 1800, under the elder Adame, reported a statute giving to the Federal Government control of elections so far as to prevent armed interference at the polls; but when the measure came to the Senate it was defeated. It failed because the Federal Government had no control over it There was no dream, no thought of exercising this right by the Federal Government until it was done under the war power in the border States in 1862-’63-’64. Troops were then placed at the polls for the Alleged protection of what was claimed to ba the rights of socalled loyal men there. The first exercise of this right by the Federal Government was under the war power. It did not come from any grant from the people or the States, but solely and exclusively from what was claimed as a war power, and, like many others of the game chiracter, force was its essential element To escape from this and to restore to their people that which they had never parted from with their own consent the act of 1865 was introduced at the close of the war by Senator Powell, of Kentucky. In its original form it gave security from intrusion, and re-enacted what was the undoubted law of every State. It was not permitted to pass until it was amended by Senators by the insertion of the words that are now proposed to be taken out, and the guarantee of free elections claimed from the Federal Government thus became a means for intruding its mailed hand at the polls. No’hing but the abnormal condition of the country in 1865 and since could have produced the excrescence that we now propose to remove. The bill as originallyintroduced-Ihave it before me—had no words authorizing troops to be present either tc repel the armed enemies of the United States or to keep the peace at the noils As introduced, the bill was a guarantee of the right that existed in the States, and a restriction upon the power of the Federal Government, which was then being used wrongfully and oppressively upon the people of the border States. The bill was sent to the Committee on the Judiciary of this body, a Republican committee. It slumbered there for a number of months, and then came back with a report by Mr. Howard with a negative recommendation. He held that the right to exercise the war power of 1864 to prevent men who were not loyal from voting was a just and proper ex ercise of power. Senator Powell, desiring to relieve his people from wrongful oppression, pressed the bill again and again, until in June. 1864, it was put upon its passage, and he agreed to the amendment that troops might be used to repel the armed enemies of the United States. This was adopted without dissent Then Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, a Republican Senator, moved to add the words “or to keep peace at the polls.” Upon that amendment the yeas and nays were called. Every “ yea ” vote was given by a Republican and every Democrat voted “nay.” Reverdy Johnsen, John P. Hale, and Senator Hicks, of Maryland, voted with the Democrats. This provision which is now proposed to be eliminated, “or keep peace at the polls,” was adopted by a vote of sixteen Republicans against fifteen Democrats and others. Then the question came upon the passage of the bill thus amended, and the Senator from Kentucky, desiring to protect his people, was willing to take anything to eave them from the pressure that was upon them, and accepted the bill in that form; but even then they were scarcely willing to pass it Nowhere else in all the history of this Government had this claim of power appeared. Here, and here alone, is the only instance of the iron-clad arm of the Federal power appearing at the ballot-box. We are done with the abnormal condition that came from the war. This people ask to be restored to their normal rights, whether it be in the North or in the South. Just here I will tell the Senator from Maine that at the election in 1860 for Governor of Pennsylvania, in the Third precinct of the Fifth ward of the city of Philadelphia, an armed body of marines were brought to the polls; that they took possession thereof and closed and kept them closed for an hour, until they saw fit to open them and permit those to vote whom they thought ought to vote. Sir, the mail-clad armor of the Federal Government has shown itself in Broad street, Philadelphia, within three years. The people of our State want no more of this. I speak for my people. They want free elections, without either the shadow or the substance of military power, either State or Federal. They want the very essence of the provisions of our own constitution recognized in practice aa it is in truth, as the law of tiie land. I am here representing, so far as I can, that people in asking at the hands of the Senate of the United States that this menace, this threat, this assumption of right that does not belong to the Federal Government may be eliminated from her statutes and that the Sta tes and the people of the States may control this question as they ought and of right are entitled to do. In Mexico, even in poor, downtrodden Mexico, when our troops were at the City of Mexico in the war of 1846-’47, because there was a provision in their laws that troops should not be present at the polls, the Federal army was withdrawn therefrom, in order that there might seem to be no menace or control, and Penay Pena was elected in the room of Banta Anna. The Federal troops obeyed the Jaw of Mexico because it was a part of the Mexican guarantee of civil liberty, and because our army, its officers and soldiers, in those days recognized the doctrine which we contend for now, that the menace of armed men at the polls is utterly incompatible with free elections.

We propose to take oat the words “to keep the peace at the polls,” and the statute will then stand as is the law of Pennsylvania today. Of the necessity for this action, arising from practical experience, I shall not now apeak. I content myself with the assertion of the broad principle that free elections with troops at the polls are impossible. The right and the power in the executive arm of either State or Federal Government to place troops at the polls on election day is an utter denial of what is vital to the free exercise of the elective franchise. I care not whether there be but one soldier to 10,000 square miles, or one soldier to every acre in this broad country. Behind the power of one soldier acting under the authority of the executive command of military power at the polls stand 40,000,C00 people. It is the obedience of this people to law; it is the recognition that law is mighty, and that the man with his blue coat and ms bayonet is a representative of 40,000,000 people that gives potency and majesty to his presence. When' you place him there as that repr< sentative the effect is as it was in the precinct I have named in our own State in 1869. Then all men bowed their heads in forced obedience, for the Federal power was there to intimidate and control them; they dare not attack it, they must acquiesce; the law unlawfully asserted coerced obedience. This sentiment of obedience to law actuates all of our people, and it is because law and the power of law brings troops to the polls without necessity and in derogation of one of our great rights that we seek to repeal this statute. In my own expei ience I have had to send an unarmed Sheriff to arrest a crowd of men acting ip violation of Jaw. When it was suggested that we should have troops to aid the officer, I said no, a true and brave man acting in the performance of his duty under the command of law is worth 1,000 troops; and it so proved The feeble assertion that there is no danger of intimidation because there is only one soldier to the 1,000 square miles is simply bogging the question. Behind that one soldier stands the power of a great people. At the polls he is under the control of his officer and he may be directed to do what partisan aims or malignity may find for him to do. Such a possible use of power is the deprivation of that great right that finds its existence in every bill of rights in this country, that belongs to the people, is a part of their ancient liberties, and to bs protected and preserved even at the sacrifice of the blood of Anglo-Saxons. There has been in the past nothing of the kind, and its enforcement now takes away one of the greatest and dearest rights that belongs to this people. We propose to take away this power. We propose to stand by the American system of free elections. That is our doctrine in this bill. We propose to stand by the American system as it exists in the bills of rights of the States and as it was found all over this country until this exercise of war power in 1862 18t« and 1864 We propose to separate the ballot from the bayonet We propose to restore to the civil power its absolute control over all the machin ry of Government. A free system of Jaws cannot tolerate even the possible use of force at the fountain-head of power. It is a standing menace, a perpetual threat In the interest of the people, in the light < f the plainest principles of civil liberty, in the performance of a plain duty, in the exercise of the legislative power of this people, we propose to restore to the American people their system of free elections. The Congress of the United States makes appropriations for but two years. The President of the United States cannot enlist a man or pay a dollar without &n appropriation by Congress.

$1,50 dot Annum.

NUMBER 11.

Congress makes rules for the government of the land and naval forces, and these short appropriations and this limited authority of the Executive over them are the very basis of our system. We propose, as I have said, in the execution of a plain purpose, following precedents and practice and law and organic law to their legitimate results, to restore by this bill to the Attierlcanpeopie their own system of free elections. Why should we not do this? Who denies the right to free elections ? Has the Senator from Maine denied this right? Will any Senator deny this right? Will any gentleman attempt to argue that the right to free elections does not belong to this people as one of their great cardinal rights? If so, why not restore it? The answer is much narrower than the concealed but real argument Are the people not entitled to free elections? Why is it that Senators do not rise in their places and assert that the people have not a right to be free from Executive interference? The argument of the Senator from Maine is that you will not be interfered with, no troops will interfere with you; there are only so many troops here an J so many there; you are not being interfered with. But the Senator forgets that upon the statute-books of this country there stands a law which gives to the Executive the power, the right to do this thing, and that in partisan bitterness, in the control of elections by one party or the other, a standing menace may become an actual, a terrible fact in the future as it has been in the past Are we met with a frank denial of the value of this right or of the right of this. people to be treed at the polls from the menace of armed force? I venture to say that no Senator will allis argument upon that ground. None so as to assert that in the heated partisan contests that occur in the elections of this country the presence of armed troops, controlled by the one or the other political party, conduces to free elections. Either the substance or the shadow of military power at the polls is destructive of the essential element contemplated by almost every State constitution in this country in its express guarantee of free elections. Another argument is used. Let us see what it is. First, we are denied the power to mold legislation. That is the first argument The two houses of Congress, the legislative power, is denied the right to mold legislation in its own way. Second, it is said to be a revolutionarypractice and coercive of the Executive; and third, that our intent is (that is the drift ol the argument made bv the Senator from Maine) to break down the Government My colleague in the House, the oldest in service there, who trains with the other side, who does not belong to the Democratic party, treated this talk about revolution and coercion very well when he eaid it was “ revolutionary in a Pickwickian sense.” There is no revolution nor coercion here. There is an attempt to play upon words and upon passion in order to get a response from the people in antagonism to the assertion of the people’s plain right The form of this legislation is sustained by precedents without number. The processes that wepursue are the modes of the constitution We neither seek to coerce the Executive nor submit to be coerced by him. We follow the line of precedent and the modes pointed out by the constitution in every particular; there is no departure. The labored argument of the Senator from Maine that this is the dictate of a Democratic caucus is an entire error. No Democratic caucus ever saw this bill, no agency but that of the Senate and the House and the committees of the Senate and the House ever saw this bill and passed upon it It is here as a result of the right of the representatives of this people to mold legislation through the recognized constitutional bodies. It is said that we are tjying to coerce the Executive. There is no attempt here at coercion. Where do you find it in this bill ? It exists only in the lively imagination of the gentlemen who assert it. Sir, we will not coerce, nor will we submit to coercion, notwithstanding the finely.ounded periods with which the Senator from Maine concluded his remarks a few minutes ago in the effort to produce coerbion. We have our lights under the constitution, and we propose to follow them to their legitimate conclusions. The Executive has his rights, and our performance of our duty will not be by one jot or tittle in the way of his performance of his duty as he thinks right to perform it under his oath and the constitution. In the exercise of a plain duty imposed upon the legislative power, wh'.ch is vested with the power to raise armies, to make rules for its government, and to enact all laws necessary to carry into execution the powers granted to it, there bodies are about to pass this bill in accordance with law and precedent. There is no provision of the bill violating the constitution, and no pretense will be made that any does. Its disputed clause relates to the employment of the troops whose pay we vote. We have no issue with any other branch of the Government We seek to make none. In the exercise of the rule of the majority we follow practice, precedent, law, and organic law to their legitimate result, as we judge our duty calls us. We will not be driven into any issue with any other power. * Each of these bodies must perform for itself, under the oath that it has taken to support the constitution, its clear and plain duty. When the Senator taunts us with the exercise of the negative of the Executive he undertakes to coerce the representatives of the people and of the States, the bodies vested by the Otmstitution with the legislative power. The right to place legislation upon money bills belongs to the legislative power. It is nowhere denied in the constitution. The proSiriety of the exercise of this right is to be udged of by the two houses, and by them alone. No other branch of the Government can object to the bill for this reason. We are the sole and exclusive judges of this question, and When we act our judgment cannot be impugned by either the Executive or the judiciary. The subject-matter of the legislation may be criticised, but the form of its enactment is solely within our the'discretion. Sir, let us look at this subject Congress has three branches. Each one is independent in its sphere. Each branch of Congress has a negative on the other, and that fact is a vital fact in the preservation of the liberties of this people. The English system of separate branches is pur system, and it is vital in it that the Senate shall have an absolute negative upon the proceedings of the House, and the House shall have an absolute negative upon the proceedings of the Senate. But because the Senate refuses to pass a bill that has matter in it that the Senate will not agree to when it comes from the House, refuses topass a bill because of that matter, is the Senate revolutionary? Does that follow? It is the plainest proposition ih the world that this is a constitutional right and invaluable as a check. It cannot be dispensed with as a part of the governmental theory of this country that each house is to have an absolute negative upon the other. And the negative of the Executive is a check upon the legislative branch, limited by the two-thirds provision. The exercise by either house of its right to refuse to pass a bill because of denied matter in the bill is the exercise of a plain, clear, constitutional right The exercise of this right by the Senate is by no means revolution. A President has the right to veto a bilL It is by no meaQS revolutionary that he should veto a bill; yet he undertakes by the exercise of his qualified negative to require us to do what he wishes. That is a part of his clear right; it belongs to him under constitutional authority, and I would be the last to attempt to take it away from him. It is vital here as it is in the legislative branch. But when the Executive vetoes a bill and we p ass the bill by two-thirds, we are practically coercing the Executive. That is the inevitable conclusion, but this is constitutional coercion. The Executive, in pursuance of his qualified negative given to him by the constitution, returns us the bill with his objections, and two-thirds of the legislative branches pass the bill over his veto. We are coercing the executive power, but are we revolutionary? We are exercising the legislative power of this republic, but it is neither revolutionary nor coercive. But suppose the bill comes here and we have not the necessary two-thirds to pass it over bis veto, whit follows? We undertake topass the bill, we put it up >n reconsideration in accordance with the constitution and it fails for want of two-thirds, what then? Are we to be coerced in regard to our legislative right? Are we to say that we must pass the bill iu the form he wishes because the Executive has vetoed it? The right of non-action, the right to decline to act under such circumstances, is as much the right of this house and of the other house and of the two houses acting in their legislative ca pacity as is the right of the President to veto a bill. We might decline to act and go no further: we need not initiate the legislation anew. If >we could be compelled to do this, then the independence of eacn branch and the independence of the legislative power is absolutely gone, and you have no longer a majority vote for the President, and- the minority can coerce legislation and the minority become the majority, and, with an unscrupulous Executive cohering the power of the minority with patronage and place, you have your Government revolutionized by the minority usurping and controlling the power of the majority, in which, under our system, it is vested by the constitution and the laws. This is the inevitable result There is no power anywhere. It belongs to the legislative branch to actor to decline to ast When it does decline to act, it is

gtinotratiq job raiiTin OFFICE Hu better tacßitUe than any eOce ta Xcrthwastai* Indiana tor the execution of all branches of a’OßX’R.iisrT UwesPROMPTNESS A SPECIALTY. ______ * Anything, from a Dodger to a Price-List, or from a Pamphlet to a Poster, black or colored, plain or fancy, SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.

exercising a plrln, clear, constitutional right, 'nd it must act, as must the Executive act, iu full view of its responsibilities to the people. That is where the responsioility comes at last The power to do this is with us, but we must act in the view that it is ultimately to be judged of by the last tribunal in this country, the tribunal of the people, and if we are not standing by doctrines ana measures which the people will approve, if we are not maintaining the rights and the liberties and the ancient freedom of this people, they will not sustain us, and they ought not; bnt if, on the contrary, we decline to act, in obedience to our clear constitutional right, in defense of the rights and liberties and privileges of a free people, they will sustain us, and this Congress will write upon the history of this people an ineffaceable record that their representatives in the Forty-six th Congress were true to the liberties of the American people. Sir, each must be responsible for its conclusions and its actions to the people themselves, and each must act in full view of that ultimate tribunal The power of the legislative branch to raise armies and vote supplies is to be exercised as that legislative branch judges wise. There is no power to control, to direct, or to coerce it. If the Executive differs, his negative controls unless two-thirds overrule it If not the bill falls, but his negative does not compel us to act. Sir, this mode of coercion never was intended to be used upon the legislative branch. There is nothing in the constitution or in the history of this people that can be construed to mean that the legislative branch shall act at the dictation of the Executive; it is not found in our system anywhere, and it cannot be cited to deter us from that which is a plain, clear duty. Another argument has been made use of in regard to the exercise of the negative of the President, which it seems to me is without foundation; that is, that he has the right to judge at all times and under all circumstances of the character of the legislation that ho shall veto. Where this power is used upon a bill that ho judges to bo unconstitutional, or is hasty, unwise, or improper legislation, then it is very clear that he has this right, and he ought to have it. But when in the history of this Government was he ever called upon to or did any President ever veto a repealing statute? When, where, under what circumstances, in what condition of affairs, did the President of the United States ever veto a bill that repealed a law which clathed him with power and took it from the people? When and where did any President of the United States ever veto a bill to repeal a law that gave him control to send troops to the places of election with the power to coerce the people and take from them their rights? When and where has the President ever vetoed a bill giving the people of this country anvof their liberties, or repealing a statute which took from them their rights? There are none such, and the people will never sustain such action. The Executive negative practically refers tho question to the people, and to them we and he must Appeal. This power never was intended to be used to keep a yoke on the people or to destroy a repealing statute. Ordinarily tho people sustain vetoes. Why? Because of the refusal by the Executive to accept power wrung from the people; but suppose you reverse this and by your repealing statute give to the Executive more power, which power is wrung from the States and the people, then there comes an entirely different question; and I tell Senators that we can face the ultimate tribunal of the people in denying supplies to the Executive power on a bill which gives back to them a great cardinal right In such a case we will have the old question of Kingly prerogative apuinst popular right; and upon that issue wo can go to the people with perfect confidence and safety. But is it not a strange argument that the legislative power which controls the purse, and, through that, the sword, has no right to say bow troops are to be used; that the legislative power is not to have any control jover tnis subject? It seems to me this is a very singular argument The purse was given to the legislative power to control the sword, nnd they go together, and the rights and the liberties of this people are to be taken care of by their immediate representatives and the representatives of the States in this Chamber as the legislative power of the country, and when an attempt is made to coerce them from an effort to restore to the people tbeir plain, clear rights, a new issue is made up, and one that we can very well place ourselves upon. Sir, the vdto power never was intended and never has been used to deprive the people of free elections or to strike down any other of the cardinal rights of a free people. When it is used for such a purpose we may with implicit trust await the verdict of a betrayed and outraged people. If it be to such a result in such a cause the American people are invited, the legislative majority in Congress will aid in writing upon the pages of our history a new and startling proof of the proud determination of American freemen to defend and maintain their own system of free elections. Sir, we were never called to a plainer or more imperative duty, and we should be faithless if we faltered in its performance. The restoration of the liberties of the people, of the landmarks of civil liberty; the removal of the burdens that bave come to the people from the changed condition which four years of civil war brought upon them: a restoration to them of the rights that that changed condition deprived them of, is our solo purpose in this bill. We have no other. We should not be true to the people if we had any other. No department of this Government has the right to resist our constitutional demand for the repeal of this menace to free government, which it is, as it stands upon the statute-book to-day. Sir, some writer has said our liberties are traceable through 1.1.’00 years of English and American history. They are the possessions of those who ever advance, not by senseless clinging to the present, but by holding, repairing, improving, grasping the ?;ood of the present, remodeling the political abric when decay is present, and improving at every step of essential progress.

The Desert of Colorado.

The San Francisco Argonaut says: “ For what purpose the Colorado desert was made is one of those mysteries which have so far proved past finding out—so utterly barren, so apparently worthless, so dreary and desolate, so scorched with blazing sun, so blistered with burning winds. The rocky hills that bound it are more forbidding than the dreary desolation of the sandy plains. The hills are absolutely destitute of verdure, treeless, soilless, colorless. Through the center of the plain, and parallel with the railroad, runs a mountain range of shifting sand, like snows piled up in banks, drifting and moving with the winds. The plain is not entirely destitute of vegetation, but the vegetation is as worthless as the sand in which it grows. There runs midway between San Bemardina and Yuma one small, beautiful stream of clear, sweet water, properly named the ‘ White-water,’ but along its pebbly margin there grows no flower, shrub, nor tree.”

Sheridan.

Busch, in his Tnemoir of “ Bismarck in the Franco-Prussian War,” describes Gen. Sheridan as “a little, corpulent gentleman, aged 45 (ho was then only 39), with a thick mustache and tuft, speaking with a decidedly German accent.” “ Burnside,” he writes, “ came in as we were at coffee, with an older gentleman, in a red flannel shirt and paper collar. The General is a rather tall and very well-made man, and, with his busby whiskers and eyebrows and soldierly air, might pass for a Major of one of our regiments”—the highest compliment a German can imagine. Sheridan said to Bismarck, Busch writes: “ The main thing in true strategy is this: First deal as hard blows at the enemy’s soldiers as possible, and then cause so much suffering to the inhabitants of the country that they will long for peace and press their Government to make it. Nothing should be left to the people but eyes to lament the war.” _ The latest sensation in Paris is Miss Cora, “the lions’ bride.” She claims to be an American, and lives in a den with hyenas, bears, lions and other ferocious beasts. A Maine man has caught a bat weighing pearly two pounds.