Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 October 1879 — LAMAR ON SHERMAN. [ARTICLE]

LAMAR ON SHERMAN.

A MagniAeent Arraignment of a Stupendous Humbug. Senator Lamar recently addressed a large audience at Winona, Miss., in the course of which he spoke at some length in vindication of the Democratic party and of Hie South, against the charges made by John Sherman. We make the following extracts from his speech: And now, fellow-citizen*, I have to say something upon a subject which, if not graver in it* char cter than that which I have discussed, is more difficult to treat with perfect unreserve. A public officer, whose position make* him the representative of the national interests, and whose duty it is to respect and vindicate the character of the whole people whom he represents, ha* lately taken the field a* an open, and, I believe, an avowed, candidate for the Residency. Hi* immense patronage and hi* necessary influence with the great money corporations of the country are all so many forces operating to give success to hi* aspirations. Indecorous, in my opinion, a* is this attitude of a Cabinet officer holding such immense patronage; compromising to the administration, of which he form* so conspicuous a part, as is this open disregard of the patriotic professions as to civil-service reform made by the President—l would not feel called on to follow him in his popular canvasses, but for one fact He has lately made, published, and extensively circulated two speeches (one delivered at Portland, Me., the other at Steubenville, Ohio), which are bitter and malignant misrepresentations of the whole Souih; misrepresentations uttered notin the heat atd passion of honest excitement, but cold, calculating, venomous words, meant to stimulate honest and ignorant people to the exercise of sectional haired.

Before I read yon what he says, especially about the South, let me call your attention to his charges against the national Democracy: “If 1 lelt at liberty to choose the theme most important to you and to the whole people of the United States, I-Would present the recent revival by the Democratic party of the Southern doctrine of States rights. This doctrine has been the evil genius of American politics. It was born of hostility to the Union. It was the bulwark of American slavery. It poisoned and estranged a large section of the country. Under the name of secession it led to the late rebellion, and aimed to destroy tLe Union by an open-armed conflict with the National Government. Every life that was sacrificed and the treasur • that was wasted_ in that wa. were the bitter fruits of this doctrine.

“Now it takes tho form of nullification—not nullification by State officers as when Gen. Jackson throttled it, but nullification by members of Congress, the sworn agents and officers of the General Government. These officers would surrender essential powers of the National Gove nment, nullify its law, cripple it in executing its conceded powers, and make it a Confederate instead of a National Government” Here is a direct and a positive sfatem nt that the Democratic party has revived and committed itself to the Southern doctrine of Slate rights—not using the phrase to convey t.lat moaning which is acceptable to the minds oil all the people of all the States, both North South, but using it to convey that meaning wiSch is repugnant to the Northern heart, and which the people of the North regard as subversive of national security and the integrity of the Union. He expressly says: “The Southern doctrine of State rights,” involving “secession” and “nullification.” Now what was that “Southern doctrine of State rights ” Involving secession and nullification, of which Mr. Sherman speaks? The gentleman knows well what the doctrine is, and he knew equally well that neither the Democratic party nor any member of Congress now maintains it, or anßorU it, or foliowait He knows that the doctrine of which he spoke was a claim that every State of the United States Jiad reserved in its own hands the right to. judge of the constitutionality of an act cf Congress, and to pronounce it null and void within its o wn limits.

Now, Mr. Sherman knows, and knows well, that every Southern State has yielded up that doctrine; yielded it up in good faith and forever; aye, more, has written its renunciation in its organic law. He knows that nowhere in this great Union is there one State which sets up any claim of right to determine the limits of Federal authority, or claims any power over the Federal Government Or any department of that Government. What, then, does the Secretary mean by this reckless assertion? And what is the impression which he in his high and responsible position intends to produce? He Knows what ideas and feelings are associated with the ante-bellum Southern doctrine of State rights in the mind of the people before whom he made that charge; that is to say, secession and slavery, rebellion, nullification and dismemberment of the Union. Such are the impressions made upon their minds, and such are the impressions which he knew would inevitably be produced when he made this charge against a great national party which at the last election gave to its candidate for the Presidency an overwhelming majority of the popular vote of the United States. Is it true that this great party has done this thing ? Not only is it not true, but Secretary Sherman ought to know it to be not true. Fellow-citizens, I do not believe that in all the annals of party war are to be found assertions more reckless of consequences, more destitute of foundation, more cunningly framed for the production of erroneous impressions on tho popular mind than are those of Mr. Secretary She-man. Nowhere throughout the extent of the Union is there any conflict of State with Federal authority, nor is there any possibility of such a conflict for the future. But, says the Secretary, “it takes the form of nullification, not by State officers, as when Gen. Jackson throttled it, but by members of Congress, the sworn ageuts and officers of the Federal Government. ” Listening to this statement, would any one ot acquainted with the Secretary’s position and necessities imagine that, in making it aud in .reiterating it, be meant to be understood as referring to an act of legislation by the Congress of the Uni ed States? Would he not rather imagine a Cromwellian dissolution ot Congress by the pike of a Gen. DeTrobriand marching into legislative halls with fixed bayonets? Was ever the passage of a bill through the House ot Representatives and the Senate cbaracteiized before this as nullification of a law of Congress? Is such language the utterance of a statesman ? Knowing the meaning of such language as we do know it, and seeing the connection in which the Secretary has used it, to what conclusion can we come save this: either that the Secretary is ignorant of that of which he speaks (and for such a man so engaged to be this ignorant is a ctime), or that, net being ignorant, he has paraded before our Northern brethren an impertinent and senseless phrase to lead them into a delusion? Does he mean to say that all or any of the Democratic members of the last Congress either openly advanced or covertly relied on the ante-bellum doctrine of State rights as a foundation upon which to rest measures antagonistic to the perpetuity and glory of the Federal Government, or as an end to the attainment cf which such measures were to be presented and justified? If so, I assert it is not true, either in letter or spirit, and I challenge him to specify the man, or the men, or the time, or the measure, or the speeches, or the votes. I repeat, then, why did the Secretary use the word “ nullification ” when speaking of an orderly, formal and ordinary act of Congress to repeal an existing law? The word has but one true meaning in American politics, when used in connection with State rights—that is, the asserted right of a State to interpose its authoiiy to invalidate an act of Congress. This is the meaning which the honest masses who listened to Mr. Sherman would attach to it; and he used the term not for any pertinency it had to the matters at issue, but with the knowlidge that it would revive forgotten prejudices, reawaken quieted alarm, reinflame cooled passions ana remadden the extinguished animosities of sections. I hope he may be disappointed in his purpose. Ho repeats the charge in another form, and in doing so make< a statement equally unfounded and misleading. He says: “When, by the firmness of the President, they fai ed in their main object, they sought by conditions in appropriation bills to compel him to agree to nullify laws in violation of his oath of office.” What are the exact facta of the proceeding to which he refers? The Congress passed all the appropriation bills, providing for all the expenses of the Government m all its departments, as Mr. Sherman himself admits. Into those bills were inserted certain provisions amendatory of existing laws, so as to withdraw the authority to use troops at the polls, to secure impartial juries in the Federal courts, and, lastly, to take from the United States Supervisors the power to interfere with the freedom of elections. I shall not now discuss the propriety of making such amendments and repeal a part of an appropriation bill. I indorse and adopt as my own the view presented by Hon. Frank Hurd, of Ohio, a gentleman whom

1 regard as among the ablest, moat useful and most. p>-omibing of our public men. “If anything,” says Mr. Hurd, “ has been settled by the legislation of the last quarter of a century, it is that even general legislation may be tacked to appropriation bills, and certainly, no man at any time in the history of this Government has disputed the propoeition that measures in the interest of economy, propositions relating to the revenue, such as these are, might be incorporated into bills when originated t>y the House.” But for the purpose of this argument let me admit that in their course in this matter the Democratic party were wrong; let me admit that they were flagrantly, fatally, hideously wrong; let me admit that that scheme of tacking is a scheme “conceived in fraud and brought forth in iniquity.” What then? The very law which the Democrats were proposing to alter and amend became a law in this very manner, and became a law in thia manner by the contrivance of the very party for whom Mr. Sherman speaks, and with which he was cooperating at tho very time. They and he conceived the fraud; they and he brought forth the iniquity; and if the Democrats, following in their footsteps in the single instance of trying to pull down by such a practice a flagrant and crying evil by them created through such practice, have committed a wrong, then is the Democratic party responsible, not to Mr. Sherman and the stalwarts, who have sinned worse than we, but to the great body of the American people, and to them alone. If we have sinned in attempting thus to procure the repeal of an oppressive law, framed in such a manner, how much greater is their sin who conceived and first practiced the plan for the purpose of stripping from the President of the Uni ed States the ve‘o power gran ed by the constitution, and who did succeed by this very me hod in passing 'his law over the President’s head without having the constitutional majority.