Democratic Sentinel, Volume 5, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 May 1881 — THE SENATORIAL DEBATE. [ARTICLE]

THE SENATORIAL DEBATE.

■ [From the Cincinnati Enquirer.] In the debate in the Senate, pending the obstruction of the public business by the Republican Senators, the Democrats have obtained the advantage. This chiefly because “he is thrice apned whose cause is just; ” for the Republicans have in the Senate men skilled in making the worse appear the better reason. Bit the Democratic Senators, in their exercise of judgment in fixing a policy in their tenacity and ability in adhering to and defending it, have earned the compliments and thanks of the Democratic party in the Union. The issue is well understood by the country. The Democratic Senators daily and repeatedly move to proceed to the consideration of the public business to attend to which the Senate was convened in extra session. The Republican Senators daily refuse to do .this, but propose to disorganize the Senate that they may reorganize it so as to pay Mahone a stipulated price for services rendered. The Republican Senators are obstructing the business of the United States ; the Democratic Senators are obstructing the payment of Maiione. This is the situation of the parties. But the Republican Senators who have conducted the debate on that side have, in the course of the debate, taken three positions upon which they altogether rely in their appeal for the support of the country. We will state them in their fullest strength. 1. They deny that there has been a bargain with. Mahone. 2. They claim that they are a “constitutional majority” of the Senate, whose demands should not be obstructed or resisted.

3. They are engaged in the overthrow of Bourbon Democracy, and all their proceedings in the Mahone-Riddleber-ger business are to that end. The groundlessness of these positions has been pointed out in these columns, on the floor of the Senate, and is apparent to all-fair-minded men. What of the first claim ? That “ constitutional” Republican “majority ” consists of Mr. Arthur, who is not a member of the Senate, and Mr. Mahone, who is not a Republican. But, waiving the question as to numbers, must not the object, as well as the number, of the “majority” have something to do with the constiturionality of the action of that “majority?’’ A “majority for what purpose? For a constitutional purpose? Senator Call, of Florida, has, with fine logic, in vited notice to this point. We give a few of his sentences : First, I ask the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Dawes) is not a constitu tional object for the exercise of the power of n constitutional majority, in the spirit and intent of the constitution, equally essential to make constitutional majority on any question as the mere existence of the requisite number? * * * Then I will ask Senators upon the other side, who maintain that there is a constitutional majority upon the question of the passage of this resolution to elect the officers of the Senate, is it a constitutional object, in the spirit and in-teudn)'-nt of the constitution, for the exercise of tbe power of a majority to bestow the Senate offices for the purpose of carrying a State elec tion in the interest of any party. *. * * I ask further, may not a resolution otherwise constitutional become unconstitutional becaus o' the intention with which it is passed, or the purpose and effect of It? As an instsne. •f this proposition I submit the inquiry iould it not have been unconstitutional in 1861 to have elected a Sergeant-at-Arms and a Secretary of the Senate for the purpose and with the effect of encouraging secession and the disso’ution of the Union? Would it not be unconstitutional to elect officers of the Senate either for the purpose or with the effect of encouraging or aiding a movement in any State of the Union for repudiation or a readjustment of her State debt ? Is it not unconstitutional to elect officers of the Senate for the purpose o • with the effect of aiding or encouraging any State or any party in the State to do anything which is not within the prescribed constitutional powers of Congress and of the Govem■neut of the United States ? Is the readjustment of the debts of Virginia or the question of the election of a Governor, a Senator, and members of the Legislature of tbe State of Virginia within the powers of the constitution and the Government of the United 3 ts tpfl P Was there a bargain ?* -Beck has answered this question with the adroitness of a strict parliamentarian, with the canniness and force of a Scotchman, and with an emphasis of facts which cannot be overthrown. We have already printed this portion of Senator Beck’s speech. The Kentucky Senator pointed out the importance and influence of the Senate Committee on Agriculture. Its supposed importance and influence among the agricultural classes are largely in excess of its real import-, ance. Mr. Mahone, never before a member of the Senate, never a member of the House, without legislative experience, and not a Republican, is made Chairman of this committee by Republicans. No bargain ? There is the Committee on Postoffices and Post Roads, in close connection with the department of the Government that has widest patronage. Mr. Mahone was made a member of this committee by Republicans. No bargain? There is the Committee *n Naval Affairs. We have all heard of the Norfolk navy yard and of all navy yards. We know their voting capacity. They are for the purpose of turning out voters and not ships. The navy yards are all at sea in making ships, but are prolific of votes. Mr. Mahone was made a member of the Naval Committee. No bargain? Mr. Mahone was also put on the Committee on Education and Labor. This was to seduce the colored vote of Vir. ginia. No bargain ? And then Mr. Mahone was allowed to name a “ Bourbon,” and a “ repudiator,” and a “rebel” of whom no Republican Senator had previously heard, as the candidate of the thirty-seven Republican Senators for the position of Ser-geant-at-Arms. No bargain ?