Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1879 — BAYONETS AT THE POLLS. [ARTICLE]

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.

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

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.