160 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



of our soil where a Congressional election can 

 be held he rises in his place and declares that 

 the Democratic party will not execute that law 

 nor permit it to be obeyed. 



" "We who are the sworn law-makers of the 

 nation, and ought to be examples of respect for 

 and obedience to the law we who, before we 

 took our first step in legislation, swore before 

 God and our country that we would support 

 the supreme law of the land we are now in- 

 vited to become conspicuous leaders in the vio- 

 lation of the law. My colleague announces his 

 purpose to break the law, and invites Congress 

 to follow him in his assault upon it. 



" Mr. Chairman, by far the most formidable 

 danger that threatens the republic to-day is 

 the spirit of law-breaking whicli shows itself 

 in many turbulent and alarming manifestations. 

 The people of the Pacific coast, after t\vo years 

 of wrestling with communism in the city of San 

 Francisco, have finally grappled with this law- 

 less spirit, and the leader of it was yesterday 

 sentenced to penal servitude as a violator of 

 the law. But what can we say to Dennis 

 Kearney and his associates, if to-day we an- 

 nounce ourselves the foremost law-breakers of 

 the country and set an example to all the tur- 

 bulent and vicious elements of disorder to fol- 

 low us? 



" My colleague [Mr. McMahon] tries to shield 

 his violation of the law behind a section of the 

 statutes which provides that no disbursing or 

 other officer shall make any contract involving 

 the expenditure of money beyond what is ap- 

 propriated for the purpose. I answer that I 

 hold in my hand a later law, a later statute, 

 which governs the restrictive law of which he 

 speaks, which governs him and governs the 

 courts. It is the election law itself. 



" I invite attention briefly to its substance. 

 Sections 2011 and 2012 of the Revised Statutes 

 provide that upon the application of any two 

 citizens of any city of more than twenty thou- 

 sand inhabitants to have a national election 

 guarded and scrutinized, the judge of the cir- 

 cuit court of the United States shall hold his 

 court open during the ten days preceding the 

 election. The law commands the judge of the 

 court to so do. 



u In the open court from day to day, and 

 from time to time, the judge shall appoint, 

 and, under the seal of the court, shall commis- 

 sion two citizens of different political parties 

 who are voters within the precinct where they 

 reside, to be supervisors of the election. That 

 law is mandatory upon the judge. Should he 

 refuse to obey, he can be impeached of high 

 crimes and misdemeanors in office. He must 

 not stop to inquire whether an appropriation 

 has been made to pay these supervisors. The 

 rights of citizens are involved, and upon their 

 application the judge must act. 



" Again, section 2021 provides that on the 

 application of two citizens the marshal of the 

 United States shall appoint special deputy-mar- 

 shals to protect the supervisors in the execu- 



tion of their duty. And the law is mandatory 

 upon the marshal. He must obey it, under the 

 pains and penalties of the law. What then ? 

 When the supervisors and special deputy-mar- 

 shals have been appointed, they find their duties 

 plainly prescribed in the law. And then sec- 

 tion 5521 provides that, if they neglect or re- 

 fuse to perform fully all these duties enjoined 

 upon them, they are liable to fine and imprison- 

 ment. They can not excuse their neglect by 

 saying, ' We will not act because Congress lias 

 not appropriated the money to pay us.' All 

 these officers are confronted by the imperial 

 command of the law first to the judge and 

 marshal to appoint, then to the supervisor and 

 deputy-marshal to act, and to act under the 

 pains and penalties of fine and imprisonment. 

 Impeachment enforces the obedience of the 

 judge ; fine and imprisonment the obedience of 

 the supervisors and deputy-marshals. 



"Now comes one other mandatory order: 

 in the last section of this long chapter of legis- 

 lation, the majestic command of the law is ad- 

 dressed both to Congress and the Treasury. 

 It declares that there ' shall be paid ' out of the 

 Treasury five dollars per day to these officers as 

 compensation for their services. Here too the 

 law is equally imperious and mandatory ; it 

 addresses itself to the conscience of every mem- 

 ber of this House, with only this difference : 

 we can not be impeached for disobedience ; we 

 can not be fined or locked up in the penitentiary 

 for voting ' no,' and refusing the appropriation ; 

 we can not be fined or imprisoned if we refuse 

 to do bur duty. And so, shielded by the im- 

 munity of his privilege as a Representative, my 

 colleague sets the example to all officers and all 

 people of deliberately and with clear-sighted 

 purpose violating the law of the land. 



" Thus he seeks to nullify the law. Thus he, 

 hopes to thwart the nation's ' collected will.' " 



Mr. McMahon: "I wish in all good faith to 

 ask my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Garfield], who 

 has read us all, and me particularly, a lecture, 

 why it is that, on every political proposition 

 upon which he undertakes to alarm the coun- 

 try and lecture the Democratic party, we find 

 that in the past he advocated the very propo- 

 sitions we now make and pursued the very 

 course which he now pretends so much to 

 reprobate? Why is it? Will my colleague 

 look to the history of the Republican party in 

 the country, and particularly in the State of 

 Ohio, with its long record of nullification on 

 the question of the Dred Scott decision and the 

 fugitive-slave law? Gentlemen on the other 

 side are amused. Why? Do they object to 

 my reference to those days ? Is it because the 

 Republican party was then only in its infancy, 

 and that it pleads minority for what it did 

 then ? In those days actual resistance to the 

 enforcement of the law was one of the cardi- 

 nal points of the majority of the Republican 

 party, a policy we have never advocated, nor 

 practiced, nor endorsed. 



" Or, do gentlemen claim that the great pub- 



