Democratic Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 April 1881 — KELLOGG AND AFTERWARD.^ [ARTICLE]

KELLOGG AND AFTERWARD.^

The people of the country, remarks a contemporary, do not appreciate how conservative, patriotic and magnanimous has been the course of the Democratic United States Senators in the last Congress and in this session of the Senate. The Republican press, which has so much of the ear of the country, perverts the facts, falsifies the record, and imitates the robber who runs shouting “Stop thief!” Let us look back a little. In the Forty-sixth Congress the seat held in the Senate by William Pitt Kellogg, of Louisiana, was contested. The Democrats had a majority of eight in the Senate, and could do what they pleased. It was as apparent then, as now, that after the 4th of March the Republicans could take possession of the Senate organization by the easy purchase of Mar hone, and the casting vote of the Vice President. It was in the power of the Democrats in the Senate by unseating

Kellogg to make the vote of the Vioe President unavailable, and tho purchase of the traitor, Mahone, an empty, useless thing. There was no Democratic Senator unaware of the possible and probable contingency which has now arisen, and by which the offioers and committees of the Senate are to pass into Republican hands. Here was a great temptation. The temptation was greater liecause the case against Kellogg was so strong as to soothe the average political conscience, if it had any hesitancy in voting to unseat him. It was maintained and shown that the Stato Government of Louisiana, at tho time of Kellogg’s alleged election, was fraudulently in power, inaugurated and sustained by force and fraud, by false returns of illegal Returning Boards ; that tho Legislature which elected Kellogg was never elected; that it never had a quorum ; that its members were bribed; that it fell of its own inherent lifelessness, leaving no trace of its existence save Kellogg’s alleged election. We use almost the language of a Senator who voted to retain Kellogg in his seat. What, under such circumstances, in such a case, and under such a temptation, was the action of a Democratic Senate ? It refused to unseat Mr. Kellogg. Why ? Because the case of Mr. Kellogg had once before been under tho advisement of the Senate, a body that never dies, and had boen carefully considered, and the Senate had found that Mr. Kellogg was entitled to his seat. A Democratic Senate said that the decision wits of such dignity and high authority that it should not be reversed save under circumstances which placed such reversal without the border of partisan spirit and beyond suspicion of partisan promptings. Democratic Senators had such respect for the Senate as to pay deference to the decision of a Republican Senate. A Democratic Senate then could have made sure tho possession of the Senate organization now. The country ought to understand, if it does net, that the behavior of the Democrats in the Senate in this matter was conscientious, patriotic, dignified, respectful to the body which they then controlled, and unavaricious for spoils. The country does not need to be told that Republican Sen- * ators, under similar circumstances, would have tossed Kellogg out of tho Senate chamber with as few qualms of conscience as were seen in their purchase of Mahone and in their repeated obstruction of public businoss by filibustering to accomplish their ends in poils and politics.