Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 13, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 May 1879 — FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. [ARTICLE]

FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

Able and Candid Speech of Senator David Davis. Senator Gar'and on the Charge of “Coercion.” Sjiee'ch of tfndgte Davis. Mr. President, the caucus is an important factor in American politics, and both the great parties of the country employ its agency. This is done on the theory that party action is most easily perfected by this method. Ido not complain of the mode adopted to reach results, but, as I have been for many years viewing public affairs from an independent standpoint, it does not help me to decide any question that may come before the Senate. Although Usually preferring to give a B lent vote, I cannot suffer this measure to be passed on without saying something on the subject The heat that has been manifested cn the occasion of this debate has surprised me, if anything can surprise me in politics. A stranger unaccustomed to our modes of debate would suppose that the Union was in danger, and that the old questions, passions, prejudices and purposes which it had been thought were laid aside forever were again revived. And this, too, fourteen years after the Rebellion was conquered, and when there is no complaint from any quarter that the Federal compact presses too hard upon one section at the expense of an other, and when the Federal Government is obeyed throughout the entire South. There does not seem to be the least ground for the excitement and bitterness that have characterized tne discussions in Congress at this session, and 1 should bo amazed were it not that the records of all parties prove that majorities invariably commit legislative wrongs and minorities invariably protest against them. If it be true as charged that the success of one of the great parties of the country means revolution and ruin to constitutional liberty, of what value would be the securities of the Government, or indeed any other species of property ? In the nature of things, if a revolution was impending or there was any danger apprehended to free government or popular liberty, the Government would not be able to sell bonds at 4 per cent, interest, nor the stock market is '*ew York maintain its present high rate This charge, Mr. President, is mere fiction and has no foundation to rest on, but it produces infinite mischief and tends to demoralize the country and every material interest in it; alarms the thoughtless and timid, unsettles business and values, and produces a state of unrest in every community. It may succeed in winning elections, but it cannot restore prosperity. That great object can never be accomplished through a continuance of sectional strife and the violence that accompanies it, nor do I believe the people are in the mood for this kind of politics. They have had more than five years of harsh experience and they want to find some mode of relief from their present sufferings and impoverished condition. And they will honor tho statesman who contributes to the stock of knowledge on this subject rather than tne political leader who will not let the past alone. I have no personal concern, Mr. President, in the rise and fall of parties, but I am deeply solicitous that the affairs of Government shall be so administered that labor seeking employment can obtain it; that all industrial pursuits will be suitably rewarded, and that heart be given to tho people, North and South, to work out of their present embarrassments. We are one people, of the same blood and with the same destiny, and unity of feeling is essential to lift us out of the mire and to help us on the road to prosperity. The different parts of our common country are so intimately connected in trade and commerce that, as a general rule, whatever injurioutly affects one part has a corresponding effect on the other, and whatever benefits the one benefits the other. It is, Mr. President, in my judgment, ths imperative duty of the hour, instead of turning tho attention of the people back into history with its animosities, to direct it to the troubled business interests of the country and the way to relieve them. With the past buried and discussions on living issues, the people would soon regain the confidence which is essential in anv plan for relieving the present hard times. It may be that such a course would affect the fortunes of parties—for both parties in Congress on any question of practical legislation fall to pieces—but it would have the most beneficial effect upon the fortunes of the country. Without intending to reflect upon the patriotism of either party, it does appear to me that the speeches on the pending bill do not represent the wishes or opinions of the masses of the people of either section. Experience has taught them that legitimate business principles which lead to wealth and social happiness require a cessation from agitation on past subjects, and that sound policy dictates the cultivation of peace and good will between the sections. The country, Mr. President, cannot be prosperous so long as the old conflict between the North and South is used at each recurring Presidential election as an instrumentality of party success, and the statesman who shall rise equal to the occasion and put it at rest will receive the gratitude of a Suffering people. The bill before us is for the support of the army for the ensuing fiscal year. It is attacked because the sixth section alters two provisions of the Revised Statutes. Section 2,002 of these statutes reads as follows: “ No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, shall order, bring, keep, or have under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls.” And section 5,528 is in these words: “Every officer of the army or navy, or other person in the ervil, military, or naval service of the United States, who orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at any place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States or to keep the peace at the polls, shall be fined not more than $5,000, and suffer imprisonment at hard labor not less than three months nor more than five years.” These sections, though widely separated in the Revised Statutes, are parts of a general law passed on the 25th of February, 1865, “to prevent officers of the army and navy and other persons engaged in the service from interfering in elections in the States.” (Statutes at Large, volume 13, page 437.) The first section denounced the use of troops at elections except in two specified cases, and the second section provided the penalties for disobedience. The two excepted cases are when the troops were necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States or to keep peace at the polls. The sixth section of the Appropriation bill proposes to strike from both sections the words “or to keep the peace at the polls,” and nothing more, so that the army cannot be used hereafter at elections for an; purpose. As an abstract principle can there be any objection to this? Ought the axmy to be used at the polls when there has been profound peace for more than a decade? Loes anyone believe that such a law would ever have received the approval of the American Congress if it had been brought forward in a time of peace? It was passed when a formidable civil war was in progress, taxing to the utmost the resources of the country. lu the opinion of the patriots of that day the state of feeling in certain parts of the country was of such a character as to endanger peaceful elections while the war lasted, unless a military force was kept in readiness for any outbreak of popular commotion. This was tlie conviction that prompted the legislation, but I venture to say no one of the eminent men who voted for it intended or expected that it would remain a part of the permanent law of the land. They were too well read in the lessons of history ana the traditions of the AngloSaxon race to believe that a free people would tolerate—except on groat emergencies like a war waged for the maintenance of the Union—the interference of the military in civic concerns. And they were men of principle and did not wish it to be otherwise. It is no new thing in time of peace to repeal a law passed in time of war. Indeed, no wise statesman will hesitate to do it if the law be unsuitable to the changed condition of things. It is a part of the very nature of every man of our race to rebel against anything which interferes with the freedom of elections, and the days of the republic are numbered if the people ever consent to place the ballot-box under the protection of the bayonet. 1 But, Mr. President, this consent will never be obtained until they have forgotten the principles of constitutional liberty and the precedents set by the Comujopg of Rugland.

These precedents I rtfrain from rtferring to at length, bitt the prtainble so ah act passed in the time of George IL (1735) forbidding the presence of troops at elections is so appropriate that I beg lea~e to read it: “Whereas by the ancient common law of this land all elections ought to be free; and whereas by an act passed to the third year of the reign of King Edward L, of famous memory, it is commanded, upon great forfeiture, that no than, by forte of arms, nor by malice or menacing, shall disturb any to make free election; and forasmuch as the freedom of elections of members to serve in Parliament is of the utmost consequence to the preservation of the rights and liberties of this kingdom; and whereas it has been the usage and practice to cause any regiment, troop or company, or any number of soldiers which hath been quartered in any city, borough, town, or place where any election of members to serve in Parliament hath been appointed to be made, to remove and continue out of the same during the time of such election, except in stick particular cases as are hereinafter specified. — Pickering's Statutes, volume lfl. And the “History of Parliament” contains this incident t “ The military having been called in to quell an alleged riot at Westminster election in 1741, it was resolved Dec. 22 ‘ that the presence of a regular bo iy 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 laws and constitution of this kingdom.’ The persons concerned in this, having been ordered to attend the House, received, on their knees, a very severe reprimand from the Speaker.”— Parliament History, IX., 326. Can it be possible that a principle of common law—the right of the people to hate an election free from the presence of dear to Englishmen 100 years ago is not equally dear to their descendants at the present day? Mr. Pi eeident, it will require some one now living to write accurately the history of theso times, for the future historian will be slow to believe that there Was any basis on which to rest such an inquiry in the Congress of the United States during the latter part of tho nineteenth century. Why, then, should not the law of 1865 be altered in the manner proposed by this bill ? It is said that Mr. Lincoln signed it, and the inference is that it would reflect on bis memory to change it To say the least, this is a pretty strong presumption from such a predicate; No man loved Mr, Lincoln better or honors bis memory more than I de, nor had any one greater opportunities to learn the constitution of his mind aud character and his habits of thought He was large-hearted, wiser than those associated with him, full of sympathy for struggling humanity, without malice, with charity for erring man, loving his whole country with a deep devotion, and intensely anxious to save it Believing as Ido that he was raised up by Providence for the great crisis of the war of the Rebellion, I have equal belief, had he lived, we would have been spared much of the strife of these latter days, and that we now would be on the high road to prosperity. Such a man, hating all forms of oppression, and deeply imbued with the principle that induced the men of 1776 to resist the stamp tax, would never have willingly intrusted power to any one, unless war was flagrant, to send troops to oversee an election. Why, then, I repeat, should not the proposed measure pass? There is no rebellion, nor any threatened, nor any domestic uproar anywhere. The Union is cemented by the blood that was shed in defense of its integrity; the laws are obeyed North and South, East and Wes*-, and our only real differences relate to the administration of the internal affairs of the Government. By the constitution of the human mind, there will of necessity be diverse opinions among the people on the best way to manage their internal affairs, and Congress meets periodically to legislate for the people aud to represent their views on the questions dividing them. But surely these differences, be they great or small, afford no justification for a departure from any of the principles that underlie republican government. If they do, the charter of our liberties will be soon frittered away. The charge that this is “revolutionary ” legislation has no force. It might be called a partisan device. Congress has power under the constitution to raise and equip armies, and the House of Representatives holds the purse strings.

In the pending Army bill, nothing is proposed but to strike out’ a single clause forbidding the presence of troops at the polls. In no respect is the authority of the President to answer a call to repel invasion, or to suppress insurrection, in any way abridged. The amendment is germane to the bill, and is simply a condition as to the use of the army, which the people’s representatives had a perfect right to impose. It is not in any proper sense general legislation, and, if it was, the statute books are full of precedents that the friends of the present measure might cite against their opponents. Whether tho clause in question ought to be repealed is a fair subject for discussion, but the form of presenting it is not liable to just criticism. Personally, I should have preferred to vote on the proposition as an independent bill, because the practice of both parties of legislating on appropriation bills is more to be honored in the breach than in the observance. If this course had been pursued it is probable the whole debate would nave been leas acrimonious, and the excitement which has followed it could never have been worked up to so high a pitch. It has been alleged that there has been an attempt to coerce the Executive in thia bill Certainly none appears on the aurfoce, and he is left entirely free to exercise his own judgment if- it should be sent to him in the present or in a modified form. To assume that he will approve or will veto it, or to introduce him in any way into this debate, is a departure from wise usage. The President’s sphere of action is defined by the constitution, and any attempt to influence legislation by suggestions of what he may or may not do is an obtrusion deserving rebuke. It will be time enough to criticise the act of the President when he snail have exercised his constitutional right, and any discussion of his supposed course before then is wholly out of place in this body. Let us hope. Mr. President, when this bill has passed from our hands that the angry debate which has attended it will operate as electricity does in purifying the atmosphere, and that we will alt come together better disposed to give to the country what has been given to party, in a united effort to provide relief for the prevailing distress in every pursuit of life.

Extract from the Speech of Senator Garland, of Arkansas. The power of the House of Representatives to originate money bills and the power of Congress to raise and support armies are unlimited except as to the duration of the appropriation. They are judges of how it shall be done and what disposition shall be made of it; and I will court the investigation of gentlemen to this proposition; can they find an army appropriation bill in which some provision providing how the army shall be commanded, where it shall be, and when it shall go, is not to be found? The appropriations for building bridges, for erecting public buildings and so on, contain provisions of that character. For symmetry and propriety of legislation, I admit with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] that it is not proper and right in itself, but nothing short of a constitutional amendment can ever get it out of our system of legislation. There is one statute of this sort that I shall be pardoned for referring to, because my memory loves fondly to linger upon it. That is to be found in sixteenth Statutes at Large, page 235. In the General Legislative, Executive and Judicial Appropriation bill, there I find the following: For payment of judgments which may be rendered by tlie court in favor of claimants, $100,000: Provided. Here comes a long nroviso—l shall not read it all, but it is what is known as the celebrated Drake amendment—in which the whole law and the whole system of pardons by the President wm attempted to be reversed and the doctrine lying at the bottom of it turned back on the country. For example, instead of the pardon when it was produced in the Court of Claims showing that the man was loyal, it wm to be taken as evidence that he wm disloyal, and the Supreme Court wm denied jurisdiction of a case which had been dismissed on a plea of that sort But the safety-valve of the Government had hot yet been expelled from the country, and, when Klein’s case (reported in 13 Wallace) went to the Supreme Court, they said to these gentlemen, “Stand Mide, the Supreme Court has already said in a case—in 4 Wallace —that the pardon wm m broad as the offense, and, necessarily, the grace must be m broad as the sin, and when the man is pardoned he is restored m. though he never committed the offense.” I myself received from Andrew Johnson Ja pardon as big m a Dutch blanket 1 pleaded that in the Supreme Court and they announced the doctrine there that r ■was full v m good a man, if not somewhat better, than I ww before { committed treason; ana, inthq

basS of Klein (in 13 Wallace), the Stipreme Cbiiri said this celebrated Drake amendment Could not stand; it wm unconstitutional—l will not use the w.ora revolutionary, but that came m near being a revolution by legislation M any I have been able to find on the statute-book —it subverted the whole doctrine of pardons and the power of the President to grant them and the operation of a pardon when granted, and. therefore, this act must stand as if it never had been passed. It wm decided in England and followed in this country on the question of pardon, that, after a man had received his pardon, an action of slander would lie against a person for accusing him of committing the offense of which “he was pardoned. That doctrine bos been repeated herein this country. . Now they reverse the engine completely, and iay that when he exhibits his pardon it is proof that he is disloyal. The Court of Claims dismissed Klein On that, and he appealed to the Supreme Court That is a statute which it would be well for people to remember and not forget. It is one of the-e tmfortttnate things that occur in time of high partisan feeling, but which I for -one hope has passed away never to return, the last semblance of which being tho matter we now have in hand.. 1 will not say all these acts were passed with a view to coercive purooses, but all these acts tended to this—ana let the student of the philosophy of the history of our Government and its nature think of that a moment—tended to make what I believe Mr. Thaddens Stevens claimed openly in the other House, that this was a Congressional Government as distinguished from a constitutional Government; that Congress was the Government of this country as Parliament wm of England. But soon after the passage of these acts, of course not for the purjrose of coercing Andrew Johnson—nobody Would say that-failing to secure what they thought Was in hand through Congress, Casar came, and with the coming of Cesar they supposed all things else would Colne that it WM desirable should come, and it wm believed that through the President, Gen. Grant, all these things could be accomplished with or without legislation of this character, notwithstanding the grand letter he had written in 1866 when he was General-in-Chief of the Army. If such statutes as this can find themselves on an appropriation bill, let nd man, woman or child in this country complain of that mode of proceeding so that we take care that there shall not bo unconstitutional provisions incorporated. But further, when we met in December under the law, our term was limited to the 4th of March. In the great clMh of k requiring the passage of bills and the pressure for investigating different measures, these provisions of the statute which the country demands shall be repealed had little or no opportunity for consideration in separate bills. They would have perished either in one house or the other, or between the two, as it turned out they did at the last hours of the session. Now mark. Immediately upon that the Congress is called together, for what purpose? For the purpose of considering appropriation bills alone. How else are you to get off these provisions that, if I am not mistaken, the country is loudly/ clamoring for the repeal of ? The President's message is not longer than the blade of an ordinary penknife, calling us together. He calls us for two appropriation bills. He says Virtually, “consider them, and go home.” We propose to consider them with all other measures necessary to protect the rights of citizens in this country. The Senator from Maine the other day undertook to frighten us by telling us this fine Capitol would have to go down and not oe kept up, and our commerce would Le suspended, and our Supreme Court and other courts. That there may be no misunderstanding on that proposition, so far as I am concerned, I have to eay that I would see this building crumble and given up to the owls and bats and rate, and every ship of ours in its moorings, and the Supreme Court and all the balance of them suspended before I would see, without attempting to protect them, the rights of the humblest citizen shackled by legislation of Congress, or the humblest citizen of this country deprived of his rights in any way. The twelve Caesars, When they punished men for what they thought, boasted of the splendor and grandeur of their great city, when their legions were trampling their citizens under foot as so many leaves in the forest. They had the r blazing avenues; they had their grand domes and their magnificent palaces; but the personal liberty of the citizen was gone. Give me that first, and I will then help build your fine temples and your commerce and all that. The boast of the English Government is that its humblest citizen will receive its protection, if it be at the mouth of their cannon, whether he is on their own soil or on foreign distant soil, and that is the secret of the strength apd power of that Government to-day. I concur with the eloquent words of the Senator from Indiana, that the people are not going to stand upon the order in which these vicious measures shall be taken from the statute book; they want them off. We have asked to have them taken off, and if we cannot get them out of the way by any other means than through appropriation bills, bring on your appropriation bill and let us have them there. There is no coercion in this; I mean no coercion to the President, He is as independent in bls sphere as we are in ours; and we are as independent in ours as he is. Did we when we passed the Chinese bill send over to him to know whether he would veto it or not? Did we when wo passed the Silver bill? Are we reduced to this that we must Bend to him as it were in the old code of practice a “ letter missive,” requesting him to hold up his hand? Let him do Ins duty and let us do our duty, and then all will go on well I have no fault to find with these gentlemen if they conscientiously believe this, but 1 repudiate the idea that any person on. this side wants to coerce the Premdent. No intimation of that character has been given out. We heard floating around ub rumors that he would veto the Chinese bill, aud it fell with his veto. We heard then as now that he would veto the Silver bill; which he did, and it was passed almost before his veto ivas dry on the table. With a general sentiment here at thia session, evidenced by the resolution introduced by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds], that we should consider no general legislation during the session, how are we to approach and get to this second bill of rights for the American citizen except through the medium df the appropriation bills? If the Senators on the other aide give us a plan, I am perfeetiy willing to adopt it. So, Mr. President, this measure in itself 1b unjust, and it should go out of the statutebook. That I do not believe any man can doubt. Is it proper that the repeal should be in an appropriation bill? It is supported by precedent so long back that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary; and, if it wm not,'there is no other means to get at it but through an appropriation bilk I have discussed the question as it suggested itself to me, and I have done it in good feeling to alb I believe yet, notwithstanding the threat of” coercion and revolution and all that, the country will still Jive. Somehow or other it manages to get along and live. I believe yet a bright destiny is before us, but that destiny is best secured by adhering to the constitution, never goinFaway from it; and, adhering to that, I believe that yet, like the hand on the sun-dial, we shall count only the hours that are bright.