Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 July 1879 — NO SURRENDER. [ARTICLE]

NO SURRENDER.

The Issue Between the Republican and Democratic Parties. “The Contest Begun, and God Give the Victory to Freedom and the Right.” Eloquent Speech of Hon. Frank H. Hurd, ol Ohio, in the National House of Representatives. Mb. Chairman: A session of unusual excitement appears to be drawing to a close. Questions of the greatest interest to the people of the United States have been from the first day until now the subject of discussion, and it seems a proper thing at its termination to inquire into the result of it, and inquire whethei or not the action of the majority of this House meets with the approval of the American people. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. Garfield], who has just taken his seat, has seen fit, in answer to the positions which have been maintained oy the Democratic party in the progress of the argument, to enter upon a disquisition as to the nature of the Federal Government and the relations of the States to that Government under the constitution which they created. Never in all my studies of the political history of this country, never in all my knowledge of the political debates which have taken place in the Congress of the United States have I heard such views of consolidation advanced as have been suggested to-day by that gentleman. He advanced the extraordinary proposition that the Union preceded the States, when the seventh article of the constitution declares: The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall he snfficient for the establishment of this constitution between the States so rutilying tho same. But in order that all doubt might be removed upon the subject, that tne constitution and the Union was the creature of ihe States, it was declared in the Tenth .vaemibnent of the constitution: ilie powers not delegated to the United B(atcs by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sattes, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nor is the opinion of the highest judicial tribunal in this country wanting upon this proposition. In the case of Lane county vs. Oregon, the following is tho decision of Chief Justice Chase, to be found on page 76 of 7 Wallace: The people of the United States constitute one nation, vtndtr one Government, and this Government within the scope of the powers with which it is invested is supreme. On the other hand (lie people of ■ ach State compose a State having its own Government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence The Statos disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union there could be no such political body as the United States. But, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the present discussion it is not necessary to entor into pn elaborate consideration of the doctrine of State rights or tho powers of the Federal Government. It ’ sufficient for the bill now under consideration that wo should inquire as to whether it is within the scope and the powers of the Federal Government to pass laws to interfere with elections iu the States, and only so far as this question is involved do I propose to discuss the doctrine of State rights at all. At the beginning of this session of Congress the Democratic party declared throe propositions. We insisted that the army should bo kept away from the polls; that the test oath should be repealed, and that laws should be enacted for the impartial drawing of Jurors; and that the Federal Government should not exercise authority over elections held within tho States. We insisted aud maintained that because of aud by virtue of the constitutional provision that the House of Representatives a'ono shall originate money bills, the representatives of the people had the right to insist that tho grievances of which they complained should bo remedied before appropriations should be made for the support of the Government. In the discussion which has continued lor three months, one of the most earnest and able that has ever occurred in an American Congress, the Democratic party has maintained these propositions. It is not necessary to enter into the details of the argument; it is sufficient for my purpose to briefly recapitulate them. We said that the measures to which we objected were unconstitutional; we said that there was no sue! person as a voter of the United States, as such; that every man who had a right to vote had it because or' State authority aud under State laws and that therefore the Federal Government, not creating the voter, had no power to interfere with him in the exercise of his rights of franchise

We insisted that, under the laws as they now stand, there is no such thirg as a national election ; that under the provisions of the constitution in order that there should be a national election it was fundamental that Congress should fix the places, times aud manner of holding such election. In that event there might be a national election, but that is not this case, for in every instance the times, places and manner of holding elections are fixed by the constitution and the laws of the States, except in a single instance, as to the time The States having exercised power upon the subject there is no occasion for the exercise of power by the United States, and to say that the United Statos and each Stote at the same time possess the power of fixing the time, place, and manner of holding elections is to say that two sovereignties possess the power to do the same thing at the same time on the same sub-ject-matter, which is itself an absurdity. We maintain as to the army, that it being a creature of Congress it has no power to be within the limits of the sovereign States except as the constitution of the United States provides, and then only for the purpose of suppressing domestic iuoiirrection or repelling tne armed enemies of the United States, and then only at the request of the Legislature thereof, or the Executive of the State if the Legislature be not in eesion. More than that Wo have referred to decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States approving all these propositions and declaring that the voters were voters of the State, and that the Federal Government has nothing to do with them. To these decisions gentlemen on the other side, with one or two exceptions, have absolutely refrained in this debate from referring. In addition to that we urged the argument that the laws that we sought to repeal enabled tlir Supervisors to come into the State and interfere with State elections for the se'ection of S!a f e officers, and we also referred to the fact “hat in the State of New York and other States the greatest outrages had been committed by the arrest of citizens without wan ant by ’fficers who had not seen them commit any - offense against the laws, and who, upon bare suspicion that an offense was intended, ha t arrested them. We showed frorr experience li w in the South justice had been made a farce; that jurors were drawn in the intercut of partisanship, and the cases were derided in the in terests of partisanship, and that (lie courts hid absolutely failed to administer justice to the people in that great section. We lefer.od-to the city of New York, where, oh an ejection day, more than five thousand American c tizms were imprisoned by the authority of the Supervisors of Election, aDd afterwards discha ged by a Judge of the United S ates Court., who deci led that there was no authori y to arrest, and that they had been guilty of no crime. More than that, we referred in our argument to the great doctiiue of civil liberty, and maintaiin d that the measures we sought to repeal were iuinveal to freedom, un-American iu spirit, and in the end, would prove subversive of free government

No more manly, no more dignified, no more logical debate so far as the Democratic sid of this House is concerned was ever conducted on this floor; but it what way were our arguments treated by gentlemen on the other side of the House? With the exception of half a dozen apeeche" the pretended answers to our arguments might as well have been made on anv other subject as upon the bill now before the House for consideration. Wnen we said that these measures were violative of th< constitution of the United States Republican orators replied that on thk side of the House the ma jority were Confederate Brigadiers who had at-, tempted t« overthrow the constitution of the United States. When we referred to the fajt of the outrages committed on American citizens, they replied by citing the outrages committed at, Andersonvitle and other prisons in the South during the war, and when we urged that the powers of the army hould be so limited and qualified that ir, might not be used to overthrow the liberties of the people, *hey said, your side was whipped by i hat army, and therefore you arc opposed to it Never in all my knowledge has a debate been 99 honestly oonduoted tigs has

been upon our side of the House; never have arguments been more unfairly met than have onr arguments by gentlemen o t the other sida Ther. are honorabli "Deceptions, of course It wou’d be invidious to nam> them, •’ ut I will ven’ure to mention the names »f two, and I refer to 'he distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr Hawley] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Itobeson] As. the result of this debate bills have b.jen passed and sent to the President of the United Statos and have been vetoed The veto power was designed by the constim tion as a powei to prevent unconstitutional legislation -tasty or >li-con3idered legislation or to • suable the Executive to protect itself against encroachments from other branches t f the Government r defy '.ny gen leu as. to point m t- any argument ii tl debat. upo. tb> adoption of toe constitution whic) did not give in favor of this provision one or the other of these reasons. Andpi tne history of *hif Government, from the day if its foundatioi until now, the veto power was never before exercised to prevent the lepea 1 of law or to prevent t.h e.>a tment of a general appropriation bill, lertainly never bes ir was th» veto powe^’exercised to prac tically take away from one*of the two nouse* of Congress a power which is conferred upon it separately by tin provisions o f the constitution itself. The power to originate bills of revenue is a power which belongs to ns, and it is a power wnich, if the President interferes with’t as he has do.,e by this veto in this ’ase, he can absolutely take away from us. What reason shave been urged in these extraordinary vetoes ? Chielly that the bills we sough* to pass away from the sxecutiye authority the powei' to enforce the law. Because we would not let him use the army on electio* day to keep the peac at the pol e ho said we took away from him the power to enforce the laws. Sir, the . rmy i the creature of Congress. The constitutioi declares that the Congress may raise an army The c.tns itution declares that appropriations tor tho army shall not last longer than twe y s The onstitutto' declares that. Congress may make rules aud regulations fer the government of the army, rules and regulations; “ rules ” coming first, “ regulations ” afterward. Therefore the army is absolutely the creature of Congre. - Whether it shall be used to execute the laws or not is for Congress to say and not for the President He must take the army as we give it to him, for the purposes which we declare it shall be used for we being'the power to create it. Strange to say, the President and his advisers and the gentlemen on the other side of the House seem to have lost sight of the constitutional provision which gives the President the power to execute the laws. The language of that instrument is that the President of the United States may call upon the militia of the several States to execute the laws. There is the power given to him for the execution of the laws; not the army, unless Congress says so, but the militia of tho States, because the constitution so provides. Never for an in' .-.it did our bills interfere with the power of the President over the militia of the States but only over the army—this creature of ours. The President has the militia of the States from one end of the United States to the other to aid him in executing the laws on election day or at any other time, at the polls or anywhere else. What is the result now, after the vetoes? Some gentlemen have said that the Democratic party has backed down, has surrendered Sii, when we eutc ed upon this fight we did not ex pect to gain the victory in a day. W tien power has for twenty years been intrepcliing b hind all possible legislation, we cannot dislodge it iu a moment We entered upon this contest knowing that many a battle must be fought many a victory be gained, before the ultimate triumph could bo achieved. Ia the Forty-fifth Congress we said to the President, your army—our army, I mean—our army shall not be ustd as a posse comitatus. In the For ty- sixth Congress wo have said our army shall not be used as a part of the police force. And before tho Forty-sixth Congress shall have e osod is term, I say to gentlemen that we will have taken from the statute-bo k every law which proposes to use this c:eatuie of ours at the polls to intimidate American citizens in the exercise of thtir highest prerogative. I would have gentlemen on the other side and the country remember that there has been no surrender of tho principle with which we began this contest. We claim that the representatives of the people, by virtue of their power to originate appropriation bills, can secure redress of their grievances by stopping the supplies for the support of the Government, either of tho President or of any other branch of the Government, unless our views on the subjects to which the appropriations relate are carried out. I say to gentlemen on the other sids and to the country that so long as the Democratic paity is in a majority in this House it will never surrender that grand, healthful power whic’ more than any other made England a free nation, aud which was put into our constitution in order that the legislative authority might have a wholesome method of controlling executive power. Mr. Chairman, this extra session has made up the issue between the two parties. The Democratic party declare that the army shall be kept from the polls; that juries shall be impartially drawn; that the test-oath shall be repealed, and that the Federal authority shall not interfere in elections within the States. Upon that question the Republican party takes issue with us. Confidently appealing only to the patriotism of the country, tne Democratic party goes into this contest. Never in al- the history of this land have more important questions been submitted to the American people for their determination. They relat* to tbe pure administration of justice; they concern thegravest questions of constitutional law; they affect the fundamental principle' of civil liberty. Every man who runt for any office in any State and every citizen who goes to the polls to deposit his ballot is interested. The whole method of ascertaining the popular will in the republic is involved in the issue.

So far-reaching are these principles that if upon this issue the Republican party shall be suece sTul, then all the power over elections in States would he drawn to the Central Govern • ment. The States would lose their places in the federative system, and whethei the army shall be need at the polls or not would bo a question not of right and of constitutional law but of Executive discretion. Such 8 result means the end of the republic and the uplifting of the empire. Can there be any doubt as to a controversy like this? In Russia, where absolute despotism silences individual opinion, it might be doubtful. In Germany, where imperial power sustains itself by an immense standing army, it might be doubtful. In Franco, where the people under Monarchs and Emperors for ages have slumbered, it might be doubtful But here in free America, with the traditions of our English ancestors, and with the sacrifices and triumphs of our American forefathers in behalf of civil liberty, it cannot lie doubtful. Shall civil liberty perish upot. i r s own threshold and by its own fireside? Shall the beacon-light which has shone from our shores for the encouragement of struggling freemen everywhere dicker iu its socket and go out ever as they are gazing upon it? Shall the sun of free government in this continent ere it reaches the meridian sink into night? Sliali the shadow aud the cloud of the army darken our free fields, and free rivers, and free lakes, and free prairies, and pollute the air so that a freeman cannot breathe it? The century of triumph just ended protests; the bright prospects of our future prete t; the hopes of the world protest; aud, what is practically of more value, the Demecratic party, with its majority of half a million of American people, protests. Gentlemen, the contest will soon begin. Ay, it has already begun. I hear the whispering of American inquiry; I hear the mutterings of Anglo-Saxon resolve. I hear the tread of the legions forming, with the banner of civil liberty above them. The contest has already begun ; and God give victory to freedom and the right 1