People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 October 1893 — THE ELECTIONS REPEAL BILL [ARTICLE]

THE ELECTIONS REPEAL BILL

Synopsis of the Debate In the National I House of Representatives. On the 3d Mr. Northway (rep. O) in spe*ki Ing against the repeal measure, said it was a i peculiarity of his to stand by the under dog in a fight, and realizing that the United States ' was the under dog in this fight he took some I ’ pleasure in defending that under dog. He then i entered upon an argument to prove that the I laws were perfectly constitutional Mr. Kyle (dem., Mies.) spoke tn opposition to the laws, criticising the statutes of the states | from which the members who signed theminor- ■ ity report came and indulging in colloquies . with Messrs. Bay (rep, N. Y.), Murray (rep, ■ S. C.) and Boutelle (rep. Me.). The federal : election law*, he said, should be repealed be- ■ cause they were unnecessary, because they | were not in the genius of our government, beI cause they were inconsistent with our republican institutions, and be-a use they were a tax upon the people. Mr. Bowers (rep, Cal) in speaking against the repeal bill denominated (sarcastically) the election laws as a “frightful specter," and ihen went <Jn to ridicule the house for the slim attendance at the debates. He understood, however, that the giants were in training for the last great struggle. When they shied their hats into the ring the attendance might be larger. On the 4th Mr. Compton (dem., Mi) advocated the pending measure. He denied the statements made by republicans that the minority of voters in the south controlled the action of the majority. He quoted from statistics to show (on the other hand) that in the New England states there was a majority of democratic voters, but there were few democratic members in congress from that section. Mr. Boutelle (rep, Me.) denied this statement and got into an angry colloquy with Mr. Compton in regard to the matter. Mr. Sweet (rep.. Idaho) opposed the passage of the bill and then entered upon a criticism of President Cleveland. The refusal of that officer to enforce the Sherman silver law and the Geary Chinese exclusion law was without parallel in the history of the United States. No public officer had ever been impeached for a more reckless violation of law. He ridiculed the letter of the president to Gov. Northen—nominally to the governor but really to congress—and declared that it merely said: “I want,” “I wish,” "I orde-.,” “I demand.” “I am Sir Oracle, and when I open my mouth let no dog bark.” He then went on to speak upon the silver question, opposed unconditional repeal of the Sherman law and eulogized the silver senators for their fight against the money power and administration patronage. Mr. Lane (dem., HL) in advocating the pending bill declared that the federal election laws should never have been placed upon the statute books. Every deputy marshal appointed under them (according to his belief) had been either a hired assassin, a hired spy or a hired voter. Mr. Murray, the republican colored man from South Carolina, spoke against the bill In his state, he said, before any man could vote in democratic primaries he must declare that he had been a democrat since 1876. The repeal of the federal election laws would, he said, open the floodgates of fraud and violence. On the oth Mr. Murray (rep, & C.) concluded his speech against repeal of elections law. He appealed to republicans everywhere, standing true to the principles of Sumner, Seward, Lincoln and Grant, the great saints of the grand old party, to resist this nefarious measure with all their power and resources. He requested his people everywhere to take the roll when it shall have been called on the passage of this bill, mark the name of every man casting an affirmative vote and regard him as their perpetual enemy. Mr. Russell (dem., Ga.) favored repeal Referring to Mr. Murray’s speech he said it was proper and fitting that the requiem gun of the republican party should be fired by a son of Ham. Mr. Money (dem., Miss) resented the reflection made upon his state in the minority reoort, denominating those reflections as infamous and iniquitous There was no ground for the accusations made against it. and he declared its elections were fairly conducted. He argued in favor of an educational qualification. On the Oth Mr. Hainer (rep, Neb.) concluded an argument in opposition to repeal of the federal elections law. He criticised the state election laws in vogue in some or the southern states, and asserted that in North Carolina a negro had been disfranchised because his wife had eloped with a white map Mr. Hicks also opposed the pending bill By the repeal of the federal election laws the democratic party would abridge the I rights of citizens to vote without regard to pre- ; vlous condition of servitude; He then referred . to the silver question; said the senate by its j delay had become the lauzhing stock of the I country, and asserted that the repeal of the ' flection laws was of more importance to the , democratic party than was the relief of the people. Mr. Brookshire (dem., IncL) argued in favor of repeal. Mr. Ray (rep, N. Y.) said the peonle were I being nauseated by the amount of talk in the , senate. He denounced Tammany Hall as a most corrupt political organization It was the “snapper” element which was endeavoring to blot the United States laws from the statute books. It might be that the last safeguard of the ballot box was to be removed, but he raised i his voice in earnest protest, I Mr. Cummings (dem., N. Y.) said he-did not ' Speak on behalf of the southx mlldewed by these i, laws, nor for the city of New York, which had 1 suffered long from a federal ulcer. The force ■ bill had been the legitimate child of the federal : election laws. In their convention the demo- | crats had pledged themselves to repeal these I infamous election laws, not in part but in their entirety, and it was the duty of the democratic party to fulfill its pledge. Under those laws many hundreds of naturalized citizens had been robbed in New York city of their naturalization papers. On the 7th Mr. Cannon (rep., IH> sold he wished to declare that the necessity and propriety of the federal election laws had been misrepresented by gentlemen on the other side, i He defended the constitutionality of the laws 1 and said that citizens having the right to vote should be allowed to exercise that right, and neither corruption nor intimidation, should deprive them of that right Mr. Hunter (dem., Ill) declared the election laws had been enacted in order to perpetuate the republican party in power. Mr. Everett (dem., Mass.)- said he did not deny the constitutional power of congress to pass the laws, but The did not believe that it had the moral right to do so. He wanted to wipe from the statute books the last relic of sectional spirit- He would remove every law that grew out of the war. Mr. Grosvenor (rep,, O.) said that Massachusetts would not consent that the fourteenth amendment should be wiped out. Nor did he believe that Massachusetts believed that the fifteenth amendment should be repudiated and repealed. And that was the position taken by the gentleman from Massachusetts He ridiculed the Chicago platform and thought that it should be referred to a master in chancery to find out what it did mean anyhow. If there ever had been a party in the last stages of paralysis it was the democratic party of to-day. There was revolution in one wing of the capitol , and demoralization in the other. Mr. Oates (dem, Ala.) opposed the election laws on constitutional grounds. He believed the states were capable of state government Mr. Hepburn (rep., la) denied the present statutes interfered with local elections in the states This repeal plan was but the prelude for something more. Gentlemen would not be so solicitous if there was not an ulterior object, which could not be accomplished as long as these laws were in force, and that object was the complete overturning of the whole fabric of the government He had no desire for negro domination, but he did desire that every man who was a citizen of the United States had certain rights under the constitution and should, whether he was black or white, have on all occasions the power to exercise his rights He denied that the federal election laws had. been designed to perpetuate the republican party in power. Mr. Weadock (dem. Mich.) advocated the repea' bill, anl pictured the dangers which I must follow the retention of the federal election laws Mr. Hull (rep., la) supported the constitu?

r tionality of the laws; and Mr. Cousins (re>, la.) *l4b opposed the pending legislation At the evening session speeches for repeal of election laws were delivered by Mr. Grady (dem., N. C), Mr. Dunn (dem., N. J.) and Mr. Anderson (dem., W. Va). Mr. McCleary (rep, Minn ) spoke in oppoettion On the 9th Mr. Dolliver (rep, la.) spoke •gainst the election laws repeal bijl He said 1 it was not in his heart to “stir up the animosities of the past, and even if it were I eould find no word* by which to describe the scandalous condition of southern politic* as severe as the courageous and manly admissions of the leading newspapers of Alabama —the Birmingham Age-Herald and the Mobile Register—of last December, which I hold in my hand. For great as is the store of wrath laid up against the day of wrath for the south more solemn still is the responsibility of the north for its miserable acquiescence in these wrongs and crimes.” He continued: “It must not be said, however, that the south la not the sole nor the controlling factor in the present agitation against the election laws. The agitation comes mainly from the congested centers of populations, where the arts of ward politics have been, in a measure, circumvented by the national inspection of the’ registry and the national observation of the count Th* city of New York is here asking for the repeal of the only law that stands between the citizen and the undisturbed activity of the political regime which literally owns the metropolis. I cannotjbelieve that its present representatives more truly speak for the real interest of the city than the leading democrats did who have Indorsed the administration of these laws.” Mr. Coombs (dem., N. Y.) spoke in favor of the repeal of the laws. Mr. Boutelle (rep. Me.) opposed the pending repeal bill Mr. Lockwood (dem., N. Y.) in favoring re peal, said that he did so in advocacy of a free ballot The deputy marshals should be retired and the rights of the states should be preserved. He did not question the constitutionality of the laws, but he stood for the right of the people to vote without intimidation. Mr. Payne (rep, N. Y.) opposed the repeal and ridiculed the facility which was possessed by the democracy of New York city in naturalizing citizens prior to the enactment of these laws. He also criticised the party for it* action in the nomination of Judge Maynard. Mr. Fitch (dem., N. Y.) said it seemed fitting that the last argument to be made in favor of the repeal of the federal laws should be made by a representative from the city of New York, where the operation had caused such public indignation. He made a savage attack on Davenport, whom he described as a political adventurer.