Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 April 1880 — LET US HAVE PEACE. [ARTICLE]

LET US HAVE PEACE.

The Spirit of Sectional Hate Soundly Rebuked Speech of Congressman McMahon, of Ohio. The Deficiency Appropriation bill being under discussion in the House of Representatives, Mr. McMahon, of Ohio, spoke as follows in reply to Mr. Garfield: I wish in all good faith to ask my colleague from Ohio, who has read us all, and me particularly, a lecture, why it is that on every political proposition upon which he undertakes to alarm the country and lecture the Democratic party we find that in the past he advocated the very propositions we now make, and pursued the very course which he now pretends so much to reprobate? Why is it? Will my colleague look to the history of the Republican party in the country, and particularly in the State of Ohio, with its long record of nullification on the question of the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave law? Gentlemen on the other side are amused. Why? Do they object to my reference to those days ? Is it because the Republican party was then only in its infancy and that it pleads minority for xvhat it did then ? In those days actual resistance to the enforcement of the law was one of the cardinal prints of the majority of the Republican party, a policy we have never advocated nor practiced nor indorsed. Or, do gentlemen claim that the great public men of their party in that day xvere unsound statesmen, dangerous to the country and enemies to the Government? The judgment of an impartial public would be to-day in favor of the Republican leaders of twenty years ago in preference to those of to-day. When the record of gentlemen has been so different in the past from their present position, on the questions of the effect of decisions of the Supreme Court, the supremacy of Federal law, and riders to appropriation bills, are we to look upon them as reformed statesmen ? Does my colleague desire to appear in that role ? Has my colleague seen the error of his ways ? Has he become convinced that in those days he and his party was wrong? Are you willing, gentlemen, to admit that to the country now ? Or are we to draw the proper conclusion that you can change your side as the necessi- , ties and emergencies of party demand ? In 1860 the Republican party was as powerful, as strong, as brainy, as full of leaders, and as intent upon great purposes as it ever was in the history of this country; indeed, more so; for it had not then been debauched as it has been since by the unlimited possession of power; it had not been corrupted by the handling of millions or rather of thousands of millions of the public money without accountability except to itself. It was then a party for the equal rights of men; 1 a party which a man might well respect although he might not agree with it in its aims and purposes. In those days one of the corner-stones of the party was placed in the Chicago platform of 1860. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic in- I stitutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is egaential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the , lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. A similar enunciation of doctrine today by any Democrat would be denounced as hatred of the Federal Union and hostility to the Federal Government. Will you admit that in 1860 you were for the rights of the States because you possessed a majority of the State Governments, and were not in possession of the Federal Government ? Do you admit that you were wrong then, but right now ? I leave gentlemen to decide that before the American people. A party which can maintain both sides of the same important question, with equal vigor, depending only upon where its party interests may temporarily lie, is not well qualified for the position of ■monitor to any other party, nor are its teachings deserving of- the attention of a serious people. Mr. Chairman, the ingenuity with which our friends on the other side evade the discussion of all economical questions that look to the real interests of the people is remarkable. When the Belknap investigation was first ordere’d the cry went all over the country that the “ Rebel Brigadiers ” were assailing an honest Union soldier who had helped to put the Rebellion down; and, although he was proven to have been guilty beyond all controversy, Republicans did all in their power to protect him. This is only one instance in the past. When we have now under discussion the question of how much money shall be appropriated for the printingoffice—because the Public Printer has violated the law in using up in eight months an appropriation intended for the whole fiscal year—when we discover that the appropriations for that department, if voted as the demands of the office now require, will make an increased expenditure of $400,000 over former years, when charges of extravagance, inattention to public interests, squandering of the people’s money are made, how are we met ? Why the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Garfield] rises, and, in his dilettant way, says that he will not waste any time on the discussion of the Printing Office. That seems to him to be only a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars to the American people ! I suppose, in view of the history of his party, he considers such a deficiency a very small matter. Perhaps it is. But it is the mission of the Democratic party at this time—and for that reason it has been kept in power—to look into the expenditure of the money of the people, no matter how small, and save wherever we can, no matter how small the sum may This purpose of the Democratic party to economize expenditures and expose the extravagance of the administration cannot be evaded by side issues. It does gentlemen no good at this late day to flaunt the bloody shirt before the American people. It might do, Mr. Chairman, in the days when our people were distressed, when men were out of employment, when there was no work to do, when our manufacturing establishments were stopped, when every interest and industry in the country were paralyzed, as the result of the policy of the party of the gentlemen on the other side. But now if men are out of employment it is simply because the exigency of the occasion authorizes them to demand 10 or 20 per cent, over the wages of hard times. I say to gentlemen on the other side, when they come before the American people with that same worn-out, tattered, faded, bloody shirt, they mistake the temper of the American people. They will find that the people will put the seal of conderpna-

tion on that party which inaugurates these sectional discussions, tending to disturb the business of the country and to increase discord between the two sections. The business of the country demands quiet, and the people will have peace. Who teach the rising generation that they should hate their fellow-country-men ? If you put into the hands of the boys of our day the speeches of Republican politicians, they are taught that their natural enemies lie in the South, and the seeds of future civil wars are planted by designing politicians for a mere temjxirary party advantage. Is this statesman-like? Is this taking a broad view of the present needs of .our country? Is it patriotic to foment divisions at home, to perpetuate sectional hatred, to weaken our country by intestine quarrels ? Oh, I wish there was a statesman upon the other side. I hope gentlemen will permit me to finish my sentence. I know that we are all apt to imagine ourselves to be statesmen, and therefore gentlemen rebel when I seem to take away the right from any of them. I was going to qualify my statement, if the gentlemen had given me time. There are statesmen on the other side of the House. I am not disputing that proposition, either as to my friend from Maine or my colleague from Ohio. I was about to say to you what kind of statesmen I wish you had on the Republican side. I wish you had a statesman who was able to rise above fomenting nil this jietty political strife between the North and South. I xvish you had a statesman who Mould wave the banner of peace, as the President did, for a -while, until resistance in his own party became too powerful. I wish there was one who could overlook the past and let this country prepare itself for the great difficulties through which it may have to pass in the next few years. They are difficulties growing out of our increasing greatness. There are gentlemen on both sides of the House exceedinglyanxioustopass decided resolutions on the subject of the interoceanic canal. It is proposed that we shall lay down on that subject a doctrine which may involve this country in an unequivocal assertion of its rights, and lead us no man can tell where. It is proper for us to consider the situation. Are we preparing ourselves, in fomenting civil discord at home, to proclaim the act of any foreign nation setting foot on any portion of the soil of this continent as a declaration of Mar ?

What must the people and the rulers of other countries think M’hen they see our so-called leaders, or those mlio claim to be such, endeavoring to keep alive sectional hate? If the people of this country M ant to learn any lesson rapidly it is that we are becoming not only the great poM-er on this continent but a standing menace to the world. The success of our free institutions is a constant argument against the despotism of the Old World. Our products, our commerce and our manufactures have almost brought Great Britain to her knees. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that this can long be the case M-ithout forcing some combination against us? And is cur country to be benefited by the appearance of division at home? Are we likely to have continued peace if M'o proclaim to foreign nations that we are divided; that, one-half of our people are against the Government; that there is no peace between the North and the South, even though the Mar has been over for fifteen years? A party that foments and proclaims these internal divisions and troubles, and asserts that one-half of this country means to overthrow this Government, only invites an attack which some day sooner or later will come from the combined forces of foreign governments. In what position will Me then I>e ? Read the reports of your Government officers, and they will tell you that in the Boston harbor there is not a single gun Mhich can keep out the iron-clads of Europe ; that the harbor of NeM’ York is in the same condition; that there is not a harbor in the United States into M’hich the iron-clads of Great Britain, of France, and of Spain cannot go and take possession of your cities. In the midst of ih ’se possible dangers, in the midst of th l prosperity of our country, in the midst of the increase of business, in the midst of a desire on the part of the people to bury all sectional issues, M’hen M - e ought to be shouting peans for our prosperity, and uniting in common energy that nothing shall retard it, the Republican politician comes to the front with his shouts of hatred to the South, his denunciation of the Democratic party as an enemy to the country, as intending to seize the Government by force, if not duly elected by the people ; and, as proof of his assertion and the propriety of his hate, he points to the remarkable fact that his pet special Deputy Marshals of Elections who controlled the polls in San Francisco are not to be paid the $7,600 M hich is said to be due them. The attempt to unsettle the confidence of the people is atrocious. If successful it would paralyze business everywhere. And the pretense that the Democratic party intends to seize upon the Government under all circumstances comes with bad grace from a party Mhich robbed us once of our rights and seems disposed to do so again. Our submission to law is proven by the peaceful inauguration as President of one m lio Mas not actually chosen by the people.