Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 June 1880 — VOORHEES. [ARTICLE]

VOORHEES.

The Indiana Senator Makes It Hot for “ the Other Side of the Chamber.” A Spirited Debate in the Senate on the Supervisors’ Tenure Bill.

On a division the Supervisors’ bill was taken up. The bill was read, as follows : “Be it enacted, etc., That the term of office of Chief Supervisor of Election provided for in section 2,025 of the Revised Statutes shall be two years. Such term shall begin the Ist day of May in each even-numbered year. The terms of those now in office shall expire the Ist day of May, 1880, and their successors shall be appointed from among the qualified electors of the proper judicial district by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Mr. McDonald said he did not believe Federal interference with elections in this country was within the constitution or beneficial in its results. He continued : “But, as we can’t repeal the law, we have been trying to take out the teeth of the Federal election machinery and make it as innoxious as possible for harm. The Senator from Now York has spoken of this bill as having been introduced by the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial caucus. It was introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wallace), who was Chairman of that caucus ; but it was not introduced as from any consultation of that kind. On the contrary, it was presented by him in connection with the report which it became his duty to make as Chairman of the select committee of this Senate to inquire into the workings of these election laws.” Mr. Teller—What report'? Mr. McDonald—Well, if the report has not been brought forward, I will state that it is in obedience to testimony which he has taken bearing on that question. Mr. McDonald went on to review the testimony taken before the Wallace committee, and continued: “It was the disclosure of these facts that rendered it necessary, in our opinion, if possible to take out of these laws their political character, and if they are to continue, allow them to continue in that way, and that way alone, by which there shall be' no interference on the part of tliis Government in favor of oue party against the other; that there shall be no paid emissaries to stand around the polls. These laws are not in the interests of free and fair elections. The power exists now, under the law as it stands, for these Deputy Marshals to break up any poll by the arrest of State officers, hold it and destroy it for the day, and if they are to be mere partisans in the future, as they have been in the past, that will bo the history of the next election held under their supervision. The design of this bill is to place the appointing of executive officers where the constitution intended it to be—in the hands of the President and Senate. They shall no longer be selected from one side, but both parties shall have the benefit of these beneficent laws, if they are beneficent. I hope the day is not far distant when we can get rid of' this whole machinery, notwithstanding the alarm of the Senator from New York, for I believe the people of the United States are better able to conduct their elections than the minions of any administration appointed or used to control elections in its interest.”

Mr. Teller asked why the Democrats did uot bring forward some measure to repress the lawlessness admitted to exist in various sections? The pretense that this bill was to prevent election abuses was absurd. (While he was speaking of the use of tissue ballots in the South, Mr. Hampton handed him a tissue ballot, and asked him to read it.) Dlr. Teller said it purported to be a Republican tissue ballot, and thereupon went into tho history of the election in Charleston. His theory was that Republicans knew that Democrats would cast tissue ballots, and That Inspectors would put their hands in the box and take out the heavy ballots, leaving mostly tissue ballots, so the Republicans cast tissue ballots, but not in the ordinary sense. They cast them legally and in this way escaped having them thrown out. Dlr. Hampton remarked that the present representative from that county was elected by 10,000 majority. Dlr. Teller'had said 3,000 Democratic tissue ballots were cast. Even allowing the 3,000 he still had 7,000 majority. Dlr. Thurman moved an amendment as follows: “ Provided, that no person now holding or who has held the office of Chief Supervisor of Election shall be reappointed.” Mr. Edmunds—Let us have that read again. It sounds quite like the “Ohio idee.” It was read again.

Dlr. Thurman—l hone it will be the idea of a majority of the Senate in a very short time, and of Congress, and of the President. I do not undertake to say that every Supervisor of Election who has been appointed is a bad man at all, but I know there have been bad men among them, one man so bad that I think his name will be infamous in the history of this country, and I do not propose he shall be a Supervisor of Election, if I can help it. I cannot distinguish between all these men who have exercised their powers. I think it a wiser thing to say that none of them shall be reappointed. We know the President will not make a single appointment while the Senate is in sesson. They will all be made after we have departed. And does the Senator from Colorado mean to say a Republican Chief Dlagistrate wants to break down the election laws ? Dlr. Edmunds asked if there was any precedent for Congress to declare that certain persons should uot hold office because they have held the same office before ? The Supreme Court had even decided a law unconstitutional which disqualified persons who had engaged in rebellion. Mr. Thurman said there were precedents in the constitution itself. An importer could not be appointed Secretary of the Treasury. These election laws said only Commissioners of Courts should be appointed Supervisors. This practically disfranchised everybody else. The Senator from Vermont always proceeded on the theory that the President had imperial power ; that Congress was treading on his toes in directing what he should do.

Mr. Hoar said this bill was part of a scheme to destroy liberties by a sort of dry-rot. The Government was not to be overthrown by blood and violence, but by corruption of the ballot-box. An animated running debate followed, in which Messrs. Hampton, Butler, Hoar and Teller took the principal part, and which turned upon the evidence taken before the Wallace committee and the interpretation of it in various ways. Mr. Voorhees then took the floor and demanded of those who had charged the Democratic side with fearing to discuss questions of public interest to name matters so evaded. Mr. Edmunds—lt would take all afternoon. Your mouths have been shut up like dead oysters ; but, under the influence of this hot weather, you seem to have now got off your balance. Mr. Voorhees—l ask them to name any question at all that they have desired to discuss, and in the absence of response by Senators who made the charge I will denounce it as not true. Mr. Edmunds—Well, take the Marshals bill. Mr. Voorhees —Have we not discussed it fully? Mr. Edmunds—Not very much. And then take the other thing. Mr. Voorhees —The other thing ? That is an ideal expression for the scholarly Senator from Vermont. Mr. Edmunds—l borrow it from the Senator from Ohio, who said once we were all things to all men. Mr. Voorhees—Oh, no ; the Senator is trifling. Mr. Edmunds—Will my kind friend who is in such good temper allow me to have read the statement of the “• big Injun” of this Democratic wigwam (referring to Mr. Thurman), that it is the business of Republicans to talk and of Democrats to vote ? Mr. Voorhees—l challenge the Senator from Colorado, the Senator from New York, and any other Senator to name any question that we have declined to discuss; and you need not suppose that I will go away from this question until I have an answer. Mr. Kirkwood stated that had asked Democrats when the Army Appropriation bill was pending whether the people were to understand by the rider to that bill that the President was to have no power to enforce laws except upon invitation of the Governor of a State, and they had made no response. Mr. Voorhees—You can gpt an answer now. The wide difference between the Senator from lowa and the school of politics he represents and mine is that I believe, and those who act with me, that we can trust the people, and you don’t. The Senator and those who are with him believe they have to have an army, troops, Supervisors, agents of the Federal Government

to harrass, press, and, if necessary, stamp upon the people of the United States in their sovereign capacity. I believe no such thing. I believe the people are sovereign in their intelligence, in their virtue, and in their rights. The Senator from lowa says that when the issue in regard to the use of troops at the polls was up we did not discuss it with him. lam glad to know that we did not discuss that question. It is so fundamental, deeply founded, so everlastingly grounded in the essential principles of liberty’thatitisnot, in the order of things, on principle a debatable question. But it was debated, forced upon this side of the chamber, not at this session, but a year or so ago, in the fullest possible manner. Now, I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Vermont to a suggestion which he made to me a while ago, that the “ other thing ” was not discussed. What it was I didn’t comprehend, but Ido now. It was the Electoral-count bill. Have we shrunk from debate on that question ? Did not the Senator from Alabama open that discussion and challenge all the intellect, all the wisdom, and all the wit and learning you have on that side of the chamber? Why, then, do you stand here adopting the language of the Senator from Vermont, saying, “We are dumb as oysters'?’ Will you answer me'? Mr.’Edinunds (who had taken a seat ou the Democratic side, near Dlr. Voorhees, and kept up a good-humored running commentary on the latter’s remarks)—l am merely in your condition myself ; I am dumber than an oyster. Mr. Voorhees—The Senator from Vermont spoke without judgment when he said Senators on this side of tho chamber had been dumb as oysters. I challenged the Senator from Colorado to name a question wc had declined to discuss, and, with the kindest feelings toward him, I say he used language that was hurtful, hard, and untrue. He talked about men being afraid to join in discussion. We are peers here. I know of no question that this side of the chamber has dreaded or declined to discuss, and I do not intend to let an impeaching, impugning charge of that kind go out of tliis chamber without being met; and no Senator oan make that charge good. When the Senator from Vermont said we had been dumb as an oyster upon some questions, and then upon “ another thing,” he referred to a question which was discussed here an entire afternoon, most ably, by the Senator from Alabama, who met all the shafts of wit and wisdom hurled at him by the Senators from New York and Vermont ; and yet they dare to say that we decline discussion. The sooner you disabuse your minds, I say to Senators, on that point the better. There is nothing of the kind whatever.

Dlr. Edmunds—Suppose you come to discussion of this very philosophical bill now pending. Dlr. Voorhees—l am discussing matters you have thrust into this debate, which are injurious to personal honor, and which Ido not intend to let pass unchallenged. I never wished to be on my feet in the Senate, but no set of men shall stand up and charge cowardice on this side of the chamber unless they can show cause. Dlr. Conkling—Will it be agreeable to the Senator from Indiana to name me some of subjects —the leading measures—which the Democratic majority of the Senate has either discussed or dealt with at this session? Mr. Voorhees—Yes, sir. Will the Senator from New’ York do me the favor to answer the question which I propounded, first to the Senator from Colorado, and then to the Senator from Vermont, and all the i cst of tho Senators, to name one question that supports the charge that we have declined to meet you in discussion ? Mr. Conkling—l understood the question of the Senator from Indiana to be much broader than that. I understood him to invite us to name questions or subjects which they had refused or failed to discuss. I have no objection to doing that, except the brevity of life. Dlr. Voorhees—Oh, that don’t impose upon anybody or deceive anybody. Mr. Conkling—l do not mean it to deceive anybody, but I should have no objection to beginning with a very large question which the Senator from Indiana gave uh notice that he was going to discuss, and which he grieved me to the heart by refusing to allow me to bear him discuss.

Dlr. Voorhees—Tho Senator from New York answers in the most limping, halting, imperfect, faltering manner to the question of what proposition this side of the chamber has refused or declined to discuss with that side. I never allow men, after making a false issue, to escape it by throwing up something else. The Senator from Colorado repeated over and over that this side of the chamber was afraid to meet certain things. I knew I was pot conscious of fear. I knew I was a reasonable equal with anybody on that side of the chamber. I did not know what I was afraid of. I listened with great pleasure to the Senators from New York, Vermont and Colorado, but I knew there was nothing that we had dreaded to meet on this side. Dlr. Edmunds—You always whistle when you go by a graveyard, don't you'? Dlr. Voorhees—And especially if tho Senator from Vermont was in that graveyard. Dlr. Edmunds—Because you would be very much afraid then, possibly. Mr. Voorhees—Did the Senator from New York tender the issue of finance'? Did he ever call it up? The Senator from Colorado insisted in words not agreeable to hear that we were afraid to meet questions tendered by that side. Dlr. Conkling—Most assuredly I wished a discussion of the finance question when I read in the newspapers that the honorable Senator was going to make a speech. Dlr. Voorhees (interrupting)—When did you ever sav so?

Dlr. Conkling—Why, Dlr. President, as the heart panteth for water brooks so I panted for that speech about the dollar of our daddies. Dlr. Voorhees—You never dared above your breath to say you did. Dlrr Conkling—l was holding my breath to hear the oration of the Senator. Mr. Voorhees—You never dared challenge such a discussion. Nobody knows what the specific views of the Senator from New York arc on the financial question, and he has never uttered them. When the silver debate took place here that lasted six months, conspicuously the Senator from New York didn’t dare to utter his opinions. Conspicuously of all the Senators in this body, more than anybody else, he hushed his voice, he suppressed his opinion, if he had any, and never uttered one single word on the subject; so much so that the great metropolitan journals of New York, his own great State, queried and wondered what influence it was debilitating and paralyzing the stalwart intellectuality of the Senator on that subject. • And he dared to challenge me. A question of the greatest moment, whether silver should be recoined, whether the money of the fathers should reinstated, came and went, and passed through all its stages, without even the Senator from New York having a feeble, infantile whisper on that subject. He is not the man to question me on what questions in debate I dare or dare not meet, for no greater question than tho question of remonetization of silver ever swept through this Capitol, and no man was ever more silent than he was when it came.

Mr, Conkling—The Senator from Indiana, perhaps because he misunderstands me, or perhaps for some other reason, chooses to give a very strange odor of personality to this debate. I seek no personality with the Senator. I never charged him with not daring to do anything. That is a word he coined himself. Mr. Voorhees—When the Senator from New York says I have injected a flavor of personality into the debate he is mistaken. The Senator from New York knows that my feelings toward him are those of entire personal kindness, and I have no desire whatever to change them in that regard; but at the same time I don’t intend that side of the chamber, led by the great ability of the Senator from New York, shall put even so humble a person as myself in a false position, nor shall be lead this discussion away from the true issue. A charge was made in the boldest, grossest manner that we were afraid to meet questions proposed by that side, and I say it is not true, and the history of the present session will show it. And now, passing from the points that have been made, I desire to pay a little attention to the bill under discussion. Ido not believe in supervision or chief supervision of elections. With all the strength of my convictions, heart and mind, I am against them all; for whenever it comes to me that the American people cannot govern themselves, either in county, township or State, I will feel from my education that this Government is lost as a republic. If Senators on that side of the chamber, where they talk of a nation mean that a nation has power to subvert fundamental principles of popular sovereignty and self-control. I do not believe in that sort of a nation. I believe in no loose confederacy, from which an erratic star may shoot at its own pleasure. I believe in no power of a State to break the Union. I said so during the war in my place in the House ; and I believe just as little in the power of the Federal Government to usurp and supplant the power of the State in local self-government and home rule. The amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio (Thurman) gives vital power, force, efficiency and acceptability to this bill, and that is, that no man who has heretofore held the office of Supervisor, and, holding it,

illustrated his tyranny, usurpation. oppression and power of outrage, shall ever hold it again. I would not vote for any bill that would give to the President of the United States jxiwer to give John Davenport and assimilated pirates in politics the right to stay in office. After denouncing Davenport’s acts, Mr. Voorhees continued : “We will meet this question and discuss it with you, unless American liberty shall die, as long as the inherent, everlasting, glorious rights for which our fathers led armies and bled in are left. As long as these principles endure, so long we will be right, and you will be wrong, and nobody knows it better than Senators on that side themselves. It is they who are afraid to meet the question. The Senator from Vermont is afraid to take away brute force, to dispense with John Davenport, to trust to the doctrines of the constitution, which said this Union was founded on the virtue and intelligence of the people.”