Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 April 1879 — GEN. GARFIELD. [ARTICLE]

GEN. GARFIELD.

Til* Republican Una or Attack Against the Revolutionary Piegramme of the Urlgadlrra (tap' AelA’a Treatment as the Democratic Threat to Starve the Ooverument lute Submission. The speech of Gen. Garfield in the National House of Representatives, foreshadowing the Republican line of attack against the Democratic programme, is in all respects an able effort, and as the opening speech of what is likely to prove a memorable debate, is worthy of careful reading. It is a fine specimen of forcible statement and close logic: The House being In Committee of the Whole on the Army Appropriation bill, Mr. Garfleld (Rep.), of Ohio, took the floor. He commenced his speech by referring to the gravity and solemnity of the crisis that had now been brought upon the country, and declared that the House had to-day resolved to enter upon a revolution against the Constitution and the Government; and that the consequence of the resolve, It persisted in, meant nothing short of subversion of the Government. He sketched the point at Issue between the twd Houses at the close of thedast Congress, and read from a report of oiiVof the Senate Conferences to,the effect that the Democratic Confereesfcpß the part of the House were determlneaTunlesS-tlie action of the House was concurred in, to%efuse making appropriations to carry on the Government; and he also quoted from the speech of Senator Beck (another of the Conferees) to the effect that the Democrats claimed the right which the House of Commons in England had established after two centuries of contest, to say they would not grant the money of the people unless there was a redress of grievance. These propositions, continued Mr. Garfleld, in various forms, more or less vehemently, were repeated in the last House, ant} with that situation of affairs the session came near its close. The Republican majority in the Senate and the Republican minority in the House expressed the deepest po-stble solicitude to avoid the catastrophe here threatened. They expressed their strongest desire to avoid the danger to the country and to Its business of an extra session of Congress, and they expressed their willingness to let go what they considered the least important of the propositions —not as a matter of coercion at all, but as a matter of fair adjustment and compromise, it they could be met in the spirit of adjustment on the other side. Unfortunately, no spirit of adjustment appeared on the other side to meet their advances. And now the new Congress is assembled, and, after ten days of aeliberation, the House of Representatives has resolved substantially to reaffirm the propositions of its predecessor, and on these propositions we are met to-day. This is no time to enter into all th s case. lam not prepared for it myself. But I shall confine myself to the one phase of the issue presented In this bill. Mr. Atkins (Dem.), of Tennessee, asked Mr. Garfield whether be understood him to state that there had been no disposition to compromise made in the Conference Committcc. Mr. Garfield replied that he did not undertake to state what had been said in the Conference Committee, for he had not been a member of the Conference. He had been only stating what had been stated on the floor of the House and of the Senate. Mr. Atkins—Then 1 state that a proposition was made in the Conference Committee the same as the proposition now before the House, and which is proposed to be attached to this bill. Mr. Garfield—l take it for granted that what my friend says is Strictly true. I know nothing to the contrary. The question may be asked why we make any special resistance to propositions which a great many gentlemen nave declared are to be considered of no impontance. So far as this side is concerned, I desire to say this. We recognise you, gentlemen of the other side, as skillful parliamentarians and skillful strategists; you have chosen wisely and adroitly your Hue of assault; you have put forward perhaps the least objectionable of your measures; but we meet that as one part of your programme. We reply to it as an order of batile, and we are as mucli compelled by the logic of the situation to meet you on the skirmish-line as we would be if you were attacking the intrenchments themselves. And, therefore, on the threshold, we desire to plant our case on the general grounds on which we choose to defend it. Mr. Garflek, then went on to refer to what he had stated on the last day of the last Congress, as to the division of the Government into three parts—the Nation, the Senate, and the People—and ho said that, looking at the Government as a foreigner might look upon it, it might be said to be the feeblest Government on the earth, while, looking at it as an American citizen did, it was tbe mightiest Government. A foreigner could point out a dozen ways in which the Government could be killed, and that not by violence. Of course all Governments might be overturned by the sword. But there were some ways in which this Government might be utterly annihilated Without the firing of a gun. The people might sav they would not elect Representatives. That, of course, was a violent supposition, but there was no possible remedy for such a condition of things, and, without a House of Representatives, there could be no support of a Government, and, consequently, there could he no Government. Bo the States might say through the Legislatures that they would not elect Senators. The very abstention from electing Senators "would absolutely destroy the Government, and there would be no process of compulsioh. Or, supposing that the two Houses were assembled in their usual order, and that a bare majority of one in either House should firmly bind itself together and say that it would vote to adjourn at the moment of meeting each day, and would do that for two years in succession—in that case what would happen, and what would be the measure of redress? The Government would die. There could not be found in the whole range of Judicial or Executive authority any remedy whatever. The power of a member as ibe House to vote was tree, and he might vote "No” on every proposition of that kind. It was not so with the Executive. The Executive had no power to destroy the Government. Let the Executive travel but one Inch beyond the line of law, and there was the power of impeachment. But, if the electors among the people who elected Representatives, or if tbe electors in the'State Letflslatdres'Whd crfcfttfetf"SßTl-"' stars and Representatives themselves, abstain from the performance of their duty, there was no remedy. At a first view it might seem remarkable, ne said, that a body of wise men Uke those who framed the Constitution should have left the whole side of the fabric of Government open to those deadly assaults, but, on another view of the case, they were wise. What was their reliance! It was on the sovereignty of the Nation, on the crowned ' and anointe. Sovereign to whom all American citizens owed their allegiance. That Sovereign was the body of the people of the United States, inspired by their love of country and their sense of obligation to public duty. Ab the originators of the forces that were sent to Congress to do their work, they had no need of any coercive authority to be laid on them to compel them to do their manifest duty. Public opinion, the level of that mighty ocean from which all heights and all depthß were measured, was deemed a sufficient measure to guard that side of the Constitution, and those approaches to tbe life of the Nation, abso lutely from all danger, all harm. Up to this hour (he said) our Sovereign has never failed us. There has never been such abstention from the exercise of those primary functions of sovereignty as either to cripple or endanger the Government. And now, for the first time In pur history, and I will say for the first time in at least two , centuries in the history of English-speaking pcople„has it been proposed, or at least insisted upon, that these voluntary powers shall be used for the destruction of the Government. I want It understood that the propositions which I have read, and which Is the programme announced to the American people to-day, Is, this day, that, If we cannot have our way In a certain manner, we will destroy the Government of this country by using the voluntary power, not of the people, but of ourselves, against the Government to destjpy it. What is our theory of laws? It isfree cdfeent. That is the granite foundation of the whole structure. Nothing In this Republic aan be a law that has not V free consent <Jf tho House, the tree consent of tbe Benate, and the free consent of the Executive. Or, if the Executive refuses his free consent, then it must have the free consent of two-thirds of each body. Will anybody deny that! Will anybody challenge a line of that statement—that free consent Is the .foundation rock of all our institutions? , And yet the programme announced two weeks ago was, that, If the Senate refused to consent to the demand of the House, tho Government should Stop. The proposition was then, and the programme is now, that, although there is not a Senate to veto it, there Is still a third Independent factor in the Legislative powef of the Government which is to be coerced at the peril of the destruction of tbe Government. It makes no difference whatyour-issue is. II U ffire ike simplest I and most inoffensive pro pos It ton SnYfie'worTi T I yet, if you demand as a matter of coercion

that It shall be put in, every fair-minded Ref million, la America would be bound to resist t as much ts though his own life depended on his resistance. lam not arguing ae to tbs merits of vour three amendments at all; I am speaking of your methods, and I aay that they are against tbe Constitution of our country. I say that they are revolutionary to the core, and that they tend to tbe destruction of tbd’niit elemuuLpf American liberty, which is free consent or all the powers that unite to nuke the law. I ask any body to take up my challenge* wnl to show me where hit herto this consent has been coerced as u condition precedent to the support of the Government. It is a little sur rising to me that our friends on the other side should have gone into this great contest on so sleuJur a topic as the one embraced in this particular bill. Victor Hugo said, in bis description of the great Battle of Waterloo, that two armies were like two inlchty giants, and that sometimes a chip under the heel ox one might determine the victory. It may be, gentlemen, that there la merely a chip under yoUr heel, or It may he that you treated it as a chip on our sboqjjler. But, whether it is under your heel or on our, shoulder, it represents a matter of revolution, und we fight for the chip as if it were an ingot of the richest ore. Let us see what the chip Is. Do tho gentlemen know what they ask when they ask us to repeal? Who made this law which you now demand to have repealed lu this bill? It was Introduced into the Senate of the United States by a prominent Democrat from the State of Kentucky [Mr. Powell]. It was insisted upon In an able and elaborate speech by him. It was reported against by a'Repuhiican committee in that body. It went through days and weeks of debate in the Senate, and, wfien it finally came to be acted upon In that body, this is about the way tbe vote ran: Every Democrat in the Senate voted for It, and every Senator who voted against it was a Republican. No Democrat voted against it, but every Democratic Senator voted for It. Who were they? Mr. Hendricks, ot Indiana; Mr. Davis, of Kentucky; Mr. Johnson, of Maryland; Mr. McDougal, of California; Mr. Powell, of Kentucky; Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, and Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware. There werelewerßepublican Senators who voted for it than there were who voted against it. Thirteen Republican Senators voted against it, and only ten for it. Tbe bill then came over to the House, and was put upon its passage Here. And bow did the vote stand in this body? Every Democrat in the House of Representatives voted for It—sixty of them. The total number of persons who voted for it in the House was about oue hundred and thirteen, and of that number a majority were Democrats. The distinguished Speaker of the House [Samuel J. llaudall] voted for it. The distinguished' Chairman of the Committee ot Ways and Means [Fernando Wood] Voted for it. A distinguished member from Ohio, now a Senator, from that State [Mr. Pendleton], voted for it. Every man of leading name or fame in the Democratic party who was then in the Congress of the United States voted for the bill, and not one against it. In this House there were but few Republicans who voted against it. I was onq of tbe few. Tiraddeus Stevens voted against, it. What was the object of the bill at that time? It was this: It was alleged by Democrats that In those days of war there was interference with elections in the Border States. Tbero was no charge of any interference in the States where war did not exist. But, lest there might be some infraction of the freedom of elections, a large number of Republicans in Congress were unwilling to give any appearance whatever of interfering with the freedom of elections, and voted against this law, as au expression of their purpose that the army should not be improperly used In aiftPtrb’jtU any electlOWH""'* 7 ' ' Mr. Carlisle (Dem.), of Kentucky—l want to ask if tbe Democrats in the Senate and the House did not vote for that proposition because it came in the form of a substitute for another proposition still more objectionable to them? Mr. Garfield—The gentleman is quite mistaken. The original bill was introduced by Senator Powell, of Kentucky. It was amended by several persons in Its course through the Senate, but the vote I have given is the final vote. A Republican Senator moved to reconsider it, hoping to kill the proposition, and for four or five days it was delayed. It was again passed, every Democrat voting for it. lu the House there was no debate, and therefore no expressions of the reasons why anybody voted for it. Mr. Stephens, of Ga.—l wish to ask the gentleman If the country is to be revolutionized and the Government destroyed by repealing a law that the gentleman voted against. Mr. Garfield—l think not, sir. That is not ti e element of revolution that I have been discussing. The proposition now is that four tern years have passed since the War, and not one petition from any American citizen has come to us asking that the law be repealed; not. one memorial has found its way to our desks complaining of the law; and now the Democratic House of Representatives hold that, if they are not permitted to force on anothesfhofl.se and the Executive, against their will and their consent, the repeal of a law that the Democrats made,, it shall be a sufficient ground for starving this Government- That is the proposition we are here debating. Mr. Wood (Dem.), of New York—Before the gentleman leaves that part of the discussion, I desire to ask him whether he wishes to make the iihpression on this House that the bill introduced by Senator Powell, of Kentucky, which resulted finally in the law of lSfio, was the bill that passed the Senate and the House which lie stated that the present Speaker of the House ,aud myself vot@d in favor of? Mr. Garfield—l have not intimated that there .were no amendments. There were amendments. Mr. Wood —I want to correct tho impression. I deny that, so far as I am personally concerned, I ever voted for the bill, except as. a substitute for a more pernicious and objectionable measure™ •—‘— —— Mr. Garfield—All I say is a matter of record; what I say is, that the gentleman voted for that, law, and every Democrat in the Senate and in tho House who voted at all voted lor it. Mr. Wood—l want to ask the gentleman, whether, in 18bo, at the time of the passing ol tliis law, flic War had really yet subsided—whether there was not a portion of this country In a condition where it was impossible to exercise an elective franchise unless there was some kind of military interference; and whether, at the expiration of lourteeu years ■wfoorG*. War ha,! snbsiiled^iJMJ^fcflHaMimia., yet prepared to continue a war-measure in a time of profound peace in tlietfloUutry ? Mr. Garfield—l have no doubt that the patriotic gentleman from New York took all those things into consideration when he voted for that bill, and 1 may have been unpatriotic in voting against It; but he and I must stand on our record as made up. Let it be understood’that I have not at all enteied into tbe Discussion of the merits of the case. I am discussing a method of revolution against the Constitution of tho United States. I de--drc. to ask tiie forbearance of the gentlemen oh the other Side for remarks that I dislike to make, for they will bear witness that I have ip many ways shown my desire that the wounds of the War shall be healed, and that the grass that God plants over the graves of ohr dead may signalize tho return of the spucg of friendship and peace between all parts of this country. But lam compelled hy tbe necessity of tho situation to refer for a moment to a chapter of history. The last act of the. Democratic administration in the Housb, eighteen years ego, was stirring and dramatic, but it wae heroic and biglisouled. Then the Democratic iart.y raid, “If you elect your man as President of ttie United Status wo will shoot your Union to death;” and the people ot this country, not willing to be coerced, but believing that they had a right to vote for Abraham Lincoln if they chose, did elect him lawfully President; and then your leaders In control of the majority of the other wing of this Capitol did the heroic thiug of withdrawing from their seats, and your Representatives withdrew from their seats and flung down to us the gage of mortal battle. , W* called it rebellion; but we admittedtliat it was honorable, that It was aourageous and that it was noble to give us rage of battle and fight it out in the open field. That conflict and what followed we all know too welly and to-day, after eighteen years, tho book of your domination is opened where you turned down jour leaves In 1860, and you are signalis ng your return to power by reading tbe second chapter (cot tliis time a heroic one), that, declares that, If we do not let you dash a statute out of the book, you will not shoot the Union to death, as in the first chapter, but s*ary« it to death by refusing the necessary appropriations. You, gentlemen, have it in your ppwer to kill this movement; you have it in your power, by withholding these two bills, to gmiMt’tUe nerve-centers of our Constitution to the stillness ot death; and ycu have declared y'rtnr purpose to do It if you cannot break; down the eiemcnfs’of free consent,that up to this time have always ruled In the Government. Mr. Davis (Dem.), of ! N. C. —Do .1 understand the gentleman to state that refusal to admit the army at the polls will be the death of this Government? Thai is the logic of his remark if it means anything. We say it will be the preservation of the Government to -keep- the wwv froro-destroying liberty atMhe polls, 1

Mr. Garfield —I have too much respect for tbs Intelligence of the gentleman from North Carolina to believe that he thinks that that was my argument, lie does not say that he thinks so. On the contrary, !an sure"that every clear-minded man knoWs that that was not my argument.. IMy argument was this: that, unless some Independent branch of the Legislative power, against its will, is forced to sign or vote what It docs not consent to, it will use the power in its hands to starve tho Government to death. Mr. Davis— How does the gentleman assume that we are forcing some branch of the Government to do what it does not wish to do? Ho . do we Krtow that, or how does the gentleman know it? .... Mr. Garfield—My reply to the gentleman is, that I read at the outset of my remarks the declaration of his party usserting.that this is lu programme. In 1856, in Cincinnati, in tlie National Convention, ami still later, In IMS 1 ), the National Democracy In the United States, affirmed the right of the veto as oue of the sacred rights of our Government, and dvciafed that any law which could not be passed over a veto by a two-thirds vote had no right to become a law, and that the only redress was an appeal from the veto to the people at the next election. That has been the Democratic doctrine on that subject from the remotest (lay—certainly from Gen. Jackson’s time until now. What would you have said In 18(51 If the Democratic majority In the Senate, instead of taking the rourso which It did, had sinudy said: “We wilt put an amendment on an Appropriation bill declaring the right of any Slate *o secede from tlie Union at pleasure, and forbidding any officer of the army or navy of the United States from interfering with any State lu its purpose to secede ?” Suppose the Democratic majority had said then: “ Put that on those Appropriat'on-hills,- or we will -refuse supplies to the Government.” Perhaps they could have killed tho Government then by starvation. But, in the madness-of that hour, the leaders of the Secession Government did not dream that it would be honorable to put their fight on that ground, but they walked out on their plan of battle and fought it out. But now, in a way which the wildest of Secessionists never dreamed of takiDg, it is proposed to make th.s new assault on the vitals of the Nation. Gentlemen [addreaslnj&tho Democratic side of the House], we have tried to count the cost. We did try to count It in 1861 before we picked up the gage of battle; and although no man cquld then forecast the awful loss in blood and treasure, yet, having started in, we staid there to victory. We simply made the appeal to our sovereign, to that great, omnipotent Public Opinion lu America, to determine whether the Union should be shot to death. Aud now, JaWfully, m our right and in our right place here, we pick up the gage ot battle which you have thrown down, and will appeal to our common sovtgelgn to say whether you shall bieak down the principle of free consent In legislation at the price of starving the Government to death. We are readv to pass these bills for the support ot the Government at aDy hour when you will offer them In tho ordinary way; and, If you offer these other measures as separate measures, we will meet you in the spirit of fair and fraternal debate. But you shall not compel us—you shall not coerce us —even to save this Government until the question has gone to the sovereign to determine whether it will consent to brqpk down any of its voluntary powers. And on that ground, gentlemen, we plant ourselves. We remind you, in conclusion, that this great zeal of yours in regard to keeping the officers of the Government out of the States has not been alwaj s yours. I remember that only six years beiote the war your law authorized-Marshals . of tlie United States to go through all our households and hunt for fugitive blaves. It did not only that, but it empowered Marshals to call for posse comitatus and to call upon all tiie bystanders to join id the chase; and your Democratic Attorney-General declared, in an ( pinion, in 1&54, that a Marshal of the United Slates might call to his aid the whole ppesc, including soldiers, and sailors, aud marines of the United States, to join In the chasif and to hunt down the fugitive. Now, fellowmembers of the House, if, for the purpose of making slavery eternal, you could, send your Marshals and could summon posses and used the armed forces of the United States, by what face or grace can you tell us that, in order to procure freedom In elections and peace at the polls, you cannot use the same Marshal with liis armed posse? But I refrain irom discussing the merits of the proposition. I liave tried, in tills hurried and unsatisfactory way, to give my ground of opposition to tliis legislation. As Mr. Garfleld resumed his seat, he was again loudly applauded on the Republican side and-in the galleries.