People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 October 1893 — THE ELECTIONS REPEAL BILL. [ARTICLE]

THE ELECTIONS REPEAL BILL.

BynopcU of th® Debate la the National House of Representative*. On the 27tb Mr. Lawson (dem., Ga) spoke la favor of the pending bill. He said the uncon stltutlonality of the law sought to be repealed had always been stronsly contended. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Broetus) quoted an apt expression from Garfield, that the ballotbox registers the decrees of the people. Upon this subject the decree of the people has been registered against the constitutionality of these election laws Mr. Lawson said that under the operation of a system of laws, such as the one under discussion, it was easy to see how in close districts enough people might bo deterred by the mere presence of the federal forces, civil or military, at the polls 'rom voting to change the otherwise ncrma, result of the election. Mr. Mallory (dem., Fla.) interrupted by stating that in his own state two members of the legislature had been arrested by federal officials, taken 200 miles away from the capital, and held there until the senate was organized by the republicans and the state government thereby given into the hands of that party. When that had been accomplished the men were released, no charge being made against them. In concluding his remarks Mr. Lawson read from the report of the investigation of the conduct of Lot Wright, United States marshal at Cincinnati, made by a committee of the hoqpe. to show what might bo done under the laws sought to be repealed, which repeal was demanded by the democratic party and the country. Mr. Bynum (dem., Ind.) stated that at a recent election in bis own state a man was arrested at the command of a United States inspector for making an affidavit whereby another man was enabled to vote By the arrest of this voter, said Mr. Bynum, fifty men were deprived of the right to cast their ballots. Mr. Daniels (rep, N. Y.) spoke against repeal. He said these laws had been signed by President Grant and had met the approval of the people from that time until the assembling of the convention in 1892 which nominated Mr. Cleveland for the presidency. Then for the first time was the demand made that these laws should bo wiped off the statute books. As to the constitutionality of the laws Mr. Daniels said they affected nothing but the election of members of congress, and to that end the provision in the constitution by which their validity has been upheld met the approval of the people who framed that document and adopted it Mr. Daniels argued that the operations of the laws had worked injustice to no one, in support of which he asserted no deputy marshal or inspector had been indicted and punished for abuse of his powers under the law. On the 28th a wordy altercation occurred be tween Mr. Fithian (dem.. Ill.) and Mr. Morse (rep. Mass.) growing out of Mr. Morse’s filibustering course on the 27th. Mr. Morse charged Mr. Fithian with being responsible for the refusal to permit him to print in the Congressional Record some newspaper extracts attacking Commissioner Locbren. Mr. Fithian desired to call the attention of the house to a rather dubious proposition made by Mr. Morse to him, who, ho said, had come to him with honeyed words and informed him that he was a member of the committee on public buildings and grounds, and intimated that if he (Fithian) had a public building bill he (Morse) might be able to help him if the Illinois congressman could see his way clear to withdraw his objection. Mr/Morse pronounced this statement false, whereupon Mr. Fithian said his colleague, Mr. Goldzier, heard the conversation and would substantiate the statement Mr. Morse said the construction Mr. Fithian put upon his proposition was entirely false. Mr. Fithian then said if the gentleman (Mr. M.) denied the statement he was himself willfully lying. Great confusion in the house followed these remarks, the speaker quelling the pending riot by declaring both gentlemen out of order. Mr. Black (dem., Ill.) spoke in favor of the repeal of the federal elections law. He said the law was not enacted for the elevation of the ballot box, but to intensify the race issue existing in a large section of this country and to 1 support the weaker and more ignorant class of I our people as against the stronger and more American of our citizens. They appealed to force rather than reason. The law placed too i much power in the hands of improper men. He ’ (Mr. Black) would vote for any amount of money and force, if necessary, to uphold the dignity of the government and the rights of its citizens, but the existing laws did neither. Mr. Black read a letter from Comptroller Bohler showing that from 1877 supervisors of elections had cost 12,854,090 and deputy marshals 21,127,000. The cost of the troops it was impossible to detail Their cost represented all the hidden drains to be accounted for. The records showed that at first these officials had been massed in democratic states in the south and in New York. Gradually the amount spent in democratic states decreased and the amount in republican doubtful states increased. In Illinois in 1878, when that state first showed signs of breaking her allegiance to the republican party, but 81,100 was spent In 1878, when the state was doubtI ful, 1,386 supervisors and 2,490 deputy marshals were employed at a cost of 8100,000. In reply to a question by Mr. Cannon (rep., Ill.) Mr. Black said every man who wore the tin star of intimidation was an oppressor. Mr. Johnson (rep, Ind.) spoke in opposition to repeal He said he wanted to “stigmatize ih!y bill as the climax of all that is I audacious aud vicious, it unblushlngly as- . sails all that is near and dear to the I American heart. It is the unfortunate Child of a wretched conspiracy; it is conceived in a spirit contrary to the principles of our government. It is a proposition to blot out all the laws to protect the purity of the ballot and a cold-blooded proposition to repeal all the laws making violotions of election laws I crimes. To be consistent the democrats should i repeal all other laws for the punishment of crime, counterfeiting, robbery and murder.” Mr. Johnson charged the democratic party with being responsible for violation of the sanctity of the ballot box, with, corrupting the conscience of the nation and defying the public will; with forging the Morey letter in 1884, with forging the returns in Chicago in the same year that sent Joe Mackin to the penitentiary, with forging returns in Ohio and Indiana, with frauds innumerable in New York, with deeds of violence in the south. “The party that has perpetrated all these wrongs now contemplates this climax of their crimes, but let them enjoy their victory without mental or moral reservation* They have set no limit io their excesses. The hour of retribution will come. It will take the party that has prostituted the power given it for great public purposes and hurl it into oblivion. Mr. Breckinridge (dem., Ky.) followed, and hurled defiance at Mr. Johnson. "If the gentleman is a fair type,” he said, “of the people of his district, then they cannot be criticised for sending here a man who denounces as infamous a majority of the people of this country. I have a profound pity for a man who could make such a speech, who does not believe his countrymen arc to be trusted. With this I dismiss him from my mind and from my speech.” Mr. Johnson interrupted by saying there were other things which the gentleman from Kentucky would like to dismiss, alluding to the Pollartl-Breckinridgo breach-of-promise suit Mr. Breckinridge replied that such a remark only showed that the gentleman (Mr. Johnson) had no sense of the propriety and decency of public life. Mr. Breckinridge’s speech was devoted largely to the constitutional phase of the question. These laws, he argued, marked an era; their repeal would mark the beginning of another and a better era. “I do not care to reply to the attacks of the republicans against the democratic party,” said he. “You can’t indict a whole people. You no longer indict the south when you attack the democracy, for the time has come when a majority of the representatives from the north are democrats.” On the 29th ult Mr. Lacy (rep., la.) spoke in opposition to the repeal of the election laws. He characterized the measure as an unseemly bill brought in at an unseemly time. This extraordinary session had been called on account of the financial condition of the' country. Some thought this had been brought about by the election of 1842, some thought it had been brought about by the tariff. Instead of meeting the financial question as it should be met, instead ot bringing forward a bill to revise the arlff—-

which the people were told was aa atrecity—this bill was thrust upon the country unexpectedly and wholly uncalled fox- There was a difference in the democratic party over the silver question. It was necessary to do something to get the democrats together, and the federal election law repeal bill had been brought forward as ths war cry around which the party could rally. The pending measure should be entitled a bill “for the protection of corruption and iniquity at elections." This would be its effect Mr. Lacy then proceeded to criticise the election methods pursued in certain districts of South Carolina Mr. ftcLaurta (dem., 8 C.) denied the allegations made by the member from lowa relative to the elections in South Carolina He denied that the negroes in that state were deprived of any rights. Some years ago there might have been trouble. But it was net the negro that had made the trouble: it was the carpet-bagger, who had gone down south. When South Carolina had got rid of the carpet-baggers, when they had packed their bags and returned to Massachusetts and other northern states, South Carolina had passed beneficial election laws. The people of South Carolina did not care whether the federal election laws were repealed or not The only reason he was in favor of the repeal was that he believed the true way to build up this federal government and make it a grand government was to give the people at home a local self-government Mr. De Armond (dem., Mo.) in advocating the repeal of the election laws said they had been enacted in order to repress intelligence in the south. They had been passed to put ignorance in power and to relieve He said the democrats, proposing the repeal of these laws, were not moving backward; they were moving forward. They were saying that the people should govern, and if it was in their power the people should governMr. Gillette (rep., Mass.) spoke against the bill and referred to the beneficial effects which had resulted from the election laws in the city of New York. The member from New York (Mr. Fellows) had said a few days ago, in defending Tammany hall, that if these laws were repealed the democratic majority in New York would be increased by 20,000 votes. Nobody accused Tammany of anything but the love of spoils. The member had said that by the repeal of these laws the democratic majority could be increased. In the opinion of the people the existence of Tammany hall and its overshadowing influence was undesirable and dangerous. The large majority of the people believe it was an unprincipled organization. Mr. Wheeler (dem., Ala) spoke in advocacy of the bill, and argued against the constitutionality of the laws which it was proposed to repeal. , Mr. BiMr (rep, N. H.) opposed the measure. He paid a tribute to Mr. Davenport, whom ho eulogized as being one of the ablest, most conscientious men who had ever administered the elections laws or any other laws. On the 30th ult Mr. Henderson (rep la) read a letter from a friend of his (whose name in advance he declined to give) mentioning five counties in western Tennessee where whole sale fraud and violence had been committed by the democrats in 1888. Mr. Patterson (dem, Tenn.) entered a general denial of this charge, and said the republican party assumed that every negro was a republican. and that if his vote is not counted for the republican party there must be fraud and violence. That was an entire mistake. Even the republicans of the south on economic questions voted the democratic ticket The republican party, by its legislation, had succeeded in drawing the color line, and so far as the white people of the south were concerned it was a sectional line. He thought yie remedy would be found in the Australian ballot-box system If that were adopted thousands of negroes in the south would vote the democratic ticket, and thousands of white men would be found voting with the republicans. Let there be kept away from the polls the army, the supervisors and marshals; and let every citizen, whether ho be black or white, go into a booth and determine by himself for whom he would vote. Mr. McCall (rep., Mass.) opposed the bill. The federal election laws should stand because there should be no reactionary legislation; they should stand as an evidence that the national government had some regard for its citizens. Mr. McNagny (dem., Ind.) advocated the bill, holding that tne judgment of the American people was that the federal election laws should be repealed. Mr. Warner (dem., N. Y.) defended the city of New York, which he said had given a model to the United States in its registration and its election laws. .The reform of the election methods had come about by state laws under the construction of the state courts. He asked in behalf ot New York state that the federal laws should be repealed. Mr. Richards (dem, O.) also advocated th® repeal of the election laws. On the 2d Mr. Dinsmore (dem., Ark.) spoke in support ot the ponding repeal measure. He expected to see the pledges of the demooratio party on this question redeemed. It was the duty of the democratio party to repeal the laws permitting federal interference at state elections, and that duty should be faithfully performed. Mr. Denson (dem, Ala.) denounced the election laws. There were some men who said that there might be another war. He was not one of those. He had fought against his distinguished friend, Gen. Henderson, of Illinois, and he did not want to see that fight any more. Mr. Cooper (dem, Fla.) and Mr. Clark (dem., Ma) spoke against the laws. The latter said the democratic party ha 3 begun business for the purpose Of giving local self government to the people. That was the mission upon which Thomas Jefferson had led it to its first victory, and that was the mission on which Grover Cleveland had led it to its latest victory. Mr. Clark, in the course of his speech, predicted that within a short time the people of th® south, white and black, would be found working together on all economic questions. In conclusion Mr. Clark said the democrats were honest and earnest in this business of repeal.