Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 April 1880 — TROOPS AT THE POLLS. [ARTICLE]

TROOPS AT THE POLLS.

Attitude of the Democracy-Able Argument of Gen. Ewing in Reply to the Republican Speeches. The following is a synopsis of the speech of Hon. Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, m the House of Representatives, defining the position of the Democracy upon the question of placing riders upon appropriation bills: The House resumed consideration of the Armv Appropriation bill, and was addressed by Mr. Ewing. He said the Democratic side had been severely criticised for not having taken part in this' discussion. He was surprised at that. The pending amendment was practically a Republican projwsition, as at the extra session only twelve Republicans had voted against it, and the Republican leaders had crowed over the fact that more Republicans than Democrats had voted for it. It was practically their thunder, and the Democratic side had not supposed that it was expected to answer their prepared tirades against the very amendment wluch they had so unanimously and emphatically supported. Now their objections come in a Babel of cries. All were distressed at this amendment, from the vacant chair on the Republican side (Garfield’s), which was an eloquent protest against the sudden somersault of liis paity, down to the gentleman from New Jersey (Robeson), who, having been absent at the time of the previous adoption of the amendment, was uncommitted, and free to dip his pencil into the blackest of colors in attempting to paint the effect of the amendment. In twelve years the Republican partv had placed on appropriation bills 387 political riders. The gentleman from Connecticut (Hawley) arraigned the Democratic party for placing riders on appropriation bills. That gentleman had been a member of the For-ty-third Congress, which had tacked forty-four political riders on appropriation—bills forty-four rebellions in one Congress. He (Ewing) was not much of an advocate of riders on appropriation bills, but he did not tremble at the idea that the Republican party -would arraign the-Democracy before the people this fall for putting riders on appropriation bills. What were the riders? In whose interest? In the interest of monopolies or tyranny? No, the Democracy had put on three riders. The first had been the prohibition of the degrading use to which the army had been put, of dispersing it into little squads all over the country, and putting each squad at the beck and call of Deputy Marshals. The next rider had been a proviso, that as long as Marshals were to be used to invest the polls, they should at least be chosen by United States Judges, whose high character would give the country assurance that the Marshals would not be used as mere instruments of party triumph. Many Republicans had voted for the rider. Their most distinguished leader had framed it with his own hand, and declared he would vote for it if he was the only man who did so. But, under the pressure of party exigency, when he felt that liis party must get up a little political clap-trap and sectional agitation, that gentleman, when the roll had been called, had beenjfound voting against the amendment which he had framed and swore to stand by. The third rider was contained in the pending amendment. He quoted from the speech made by Robeson, to the effect that this amendment “ bound our defenders hand and foot and sawed the flagstaff of the country.” There was a law on the statute books in the very words of tliis amendment. The party of the gentleman from New Jersey had cast more votes for that law than the Democrats had. Where had the gentleman been when his party had been binding “ our defenders hand and foot?” He could not have been off junketing, certainly, at such an hour of peril. Mr. Robeson —I was paired with the leader of the opposition, F. Wood, of New York. Mr. Ewing—That pair did not save “the flagstaff of the country.” What a spectacle, he continued, the Republican party binding “our defenders hand and foot.” It was a case very much like Whittaker, at West Point. The suspicion was that the party complaining had bound itself. Some gentlemen on the' other side had said that the Democratic party ought not to assume that Hayes would use the army • unlawfully. If George Washington were President he (Ewing) would not he willing that he should have power to use troops at the polls. Possibly Hayes might not make bad use of that power. Another President might come in after nim, who would not be quite so goody goody as Hayes. He might be a man of ambition, and of willfulness. It might be Gen. Grant —[slight applause on the Republican side, and cries of “It will”]—who had said in 1876, in n message to the House, that it was well understood that the presence of United States troops at polling places never interfered with the franchise of any citizen. Over 100 years after independence had been fought for and won, the gentleman from lowa (McCoid) had stated that American troops at American polls had no alarm for him. He (Ewing) would be ashamed of the other side of the House if he believed it could calmly utter and feel such a sentiment as that. Had the love of liberty died as arts.and sciences progressed? Had this wonderful advance of the country in the arts and sciences, this power which enabled the people to explore the hidden dephts of the universe and to use latent and invisible powers of nature, been accompanied with the decay of love of liberty in the American heart? If he felt that it had, he would pray to God that the people might give up steam and lightning and go back to tire wooden plow and hewed-log cabfii of their liberty-loving sires. He did not know but that the Republican party might succeed in breaking down all the safeguards of onr liberty, and in handing over term after term to a gentleman whom it was pleased to call (ignoring 1,500,000 soldiers who had done the figliting) the savior of bis country. But whether it could or could not succeed in that, those who believed that the use of troops at the polls should not be permitted could not excuse themselves for failing to make this fight; and he could tell the gentlemen on the other side that, if they proposed to cany it before the people on the stump, and put themselves in a position of opposing that prohibition, the Democratic party would meet them upon it and it might be that they would not come off with quite as flying colors as they had last fall. Mr. Humphrey—ls we do not succeed, we will not turn the Government over to you with a war and a rebellion on your hands. Mr. Ewing, in conclusion, declared that, on whatever side troops might be at election precincts, bayonets would become tire base instruments of the petty despot who sent them to thenoils. The question then recurred on the bill and amendments. The minor amendments were adopted without division, and that relative to troops at the polls by a strict party vote—yeas, 116, nays, 95. The bill then passed—yeas, 118; 95 another strict party vote, with the exception of Nicholls, who voted in the negative.