162 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



ing politicians for a mere temporary party ad- 

 vantage. Is this statesmanlike? Is this tak- 

 ing a broad view of the present needs of our 

 country ? Is it patriotic to foment divisions at 

 home, to perpetuate sectional hatred, to weaken 

 our country by intestine quarrels ? 



"Oh, I wish there was a statesman upon the 

 other side? I hope gentlemen will permit me 

 to finish my sentence. I know that we are all 

 apt to imagine ourselves to be statesmen, and 

 therefore gentlemen rebel when I seem to take 

 away the right from any of them. I was going 

 to qualify my statement, if gentlemen had given 

 me time. There are statesmen on the other 

 side of the House. I am not disputing that 

 proposition, either as to my friend from Maine, 

 or my colleague from Ohio. I was about to 

 say to you what kind of statesmen I wish you 

 had on the Republican side. I wish you had a 

 statesman who was able to rise above foment- 

 ing all this petty political strife between the 

 North and the South. I wish you had a states 

 man who would wave the banner of peace, as 

 the President did, for a while, until resistance in 

 his own party became too powerful. I wish 

 there was one who could overlook the past and 

 let this country prepare itself for the great diffi- 

 culties through which it may have to pass in 

 the next few years. They are difficulties grow- 

 ing out of our increasing greatness. 



" What must the people and the rulers of oth- 

 er countries think when they see our so-called 

 leaders, or those who claim to be such, endeav- 

 oring to keep alive sectional hate ? If the peo- 

 ple of this country want to learn any lesson 

 rapidly it is that we are becoming not only the 

 great power on this continent but a standing 

 menace to the world. The success of our free 

 institutions is a constant argument against the 

 despotism of the Old World. Our products, 

 our commsrce, and our manufactures have al- 

 most brought Great Britain to her knees. Do 

 you think, Mr. Chairman, that this can long be 

 the case without forcing some combination 

 against us ? And is our country to be benefited 

 by the appearance of division at home? Are we 

 likely to have continued peace if we proclaim 

 to foreign nations that we are divided ; that 

 one half of our people are against the Govern- 

 ment ; that there is no peace between the North 

 and the South, even though the war has been 

 over for fifteen years? 



" A party that foments and proclaims these 

 internal divisions and troubles, and asserts that 

 one half of this country means to overthrow 

 this Government, only invites an attack which 

 some day sooner or later will come from the 

 combined forces of foreign governments. In 

 what position will we then be? Read the re- 

 ports of your Government officers, and they 

 will tell you that in Boston Harbor there is 

 not a single gun which cnn keep out the iron- 

 clads of Europe ; that the harbor of New York 

 is in the same condition ; that there is not a 

 harbor in the United States into which the 

 iron-clads of Great Britain, of France, and of 



Spain can not go and take possession of your 

 cities. 



"In the midst of these possible dangers, in 

 the midst of the prosperity of our country, in 

 the midst of the increase of business, in th< 

 midst of a desire on the part of the people 

 bury all sectional issues, when we ought to 

 shouting pseans for our prosperity, and unitii 

 in common energy that nothing shall retard it 

 the Republican politician comes to the front 

 with his shouts of hatred to the South, his de- 

 nunciation of the Democratic party as an enenr 

 to the country, as intending to seize the Gov- 

 ernment by force, if not duly elected by th< 

 people ; and, as proof of his assertion and the 

 propriety of his hate, he points to the remark- 

 able fact that his pet special deputy-marshals 

 of elections who controlled the polls in San 

 Francisco are not to be paid the $7,000 which 

 is said to be due them. 



" The attempt to unsettle the confidence of 

 the people is atrocious. If successful it would 

 paralyze business everywhere. And the pre- 

 tense' that the Democratic party intends to seize 

 upon the Government under all circumstances 

 comes with a bad grace from a party which 

 robbed us once of our rights and seems dis- 

 posed to do so again. Our submission to law 

 is proved by the peaceful inauguration as Presi- 

 dent of one who was not actually chosen by 

 the people. 



" Now, sir, there is nothing in this bill which 

 in any way prevents the full execution of 

 the election laws to their fullest extent; no- 

 thing to prevent general deputy-marshals from 

 doing duty at the polls; nothing to prevent 

 a United States marshal from appointing 

 many general deputy-marshals as he pie* 

 at any future election, or to prevent the mar- 

 shals or their general deputies from arresting 

 on election-day as many persons as they please I 

 and carrying them before commissioners where 

 they can be tried. How, then, do we nullify 

 these laws? "We simply say that we will not 

 give $7,600 to pay your special deputy-marshals 

 in California, because you had no authority to 

 appoint them when no money was appropriated 

 for that purpose. 



" Now, I want to say to the gentleman agaii 

 that the fact that the Supreme Court of th< 

 United States has decided a particular law 

 be constitutional is no reason why Congre 

 shall be denounced as a nullifier because it fails 

 to appropriate money under that particular 

 law. What did the Supreme Court decide' 

 Merely that the election laws are constitution- 

 al ; that it was within the ordinary power ot 

 Congress to pass such laws ? Did the Supreme 

 Court decide that they were good laws? Did 

 it decide that it is the duty of Congress to ap- 

 priate money to carry them out? Did the 

 court decide that they are laws which ought tc 

 be carried out? By no means. I call for the 

 reading of anything in the Supreme Court de- 

 cision putting any obligation upon us in regard 

 to that matter. 



