168 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



sentatives at the last session of the last Con- 

 gress. It was stricken out in the Senate. A 

 conference of the two Houses was had. There 

 was a failure of agreement by that conference; 

 the term of the Congress expired, and the bill 

 failed. In the extra session a bill embracing 

 the same provisions was introduced, discussed 

 for months, passed by this House, passed by 

 the Senate, and sent to the acting President of 

 the United States, by whom it was vetoed. 

 The same proposition was afterward brought 

 in as an independent measure, unconnected 

 with appropriations, and was fully discussed, 

 passed by the House and by the Senate, and 

 was again vetoed by the Executive. After all 

 this there was added to the Army appropria- 

 tion bill a clause identical with this amend- 

 ment, namely : 



u That no money appropriated in this act is appro- 

 priated or shall be paid for the subsistence, equipment, 

 transportation, or compensation of any portion of the 

 Army of the United States to be used as a police force 

 to keep the peace at the polls at any election held 

 within any State. 



"This, of course, did not propose to repeal 

 any law ; it was simply a prohibition upon the 

 use of the Army or a condition that the ap- 

 propriations should not apply if the Army 

 should be thus used. This was adopted nearly 

 unanimously. Those whom we on this side 

 recognize as the leaders of the other side ac- 

 ceded to it. It was discussed but little, and 

 when the question was taken there were 

 yeas 172, nays 31, not voting 83. 



" Of the members voting upon this proposi- 

 tion, but twelve Republican and nineteen Dem- 

 ocratic members voted against it. Now, it 

 seems to me that when a proposition so mild 

 and inoffensive as this has so lately and so 

 unanimously met the concurring sentiment of 

 both sides of this House, it is hardly reasonable 

 and certainly not profitable to enter now into 

 any further discussion of it. 



" Mr. Chairman, this proposition does not 

 rise to the measure of my demands by any 

 manner of means. No, sir, this tame, cow- 

 ardly amendment does not come up to that 

 standard of legislation which (had I the power) 

 I would here and now unyieldingly insist upon. 

 I would wipe out this un-American, anti-dem- 

 ocratic, villainous statute, which owes its ex- 

 istence to the inspirations of fanaticism and 

 to an era of hate ; one which disgraces the 

 statute-book, is a shameful parody on republi- 

 can government, and an insult to the sovereign 

 people of the country ! " 



Mr. Conger : u Will the gentleman state on 

 which side the ' hate ' and ' fanaticism ' were ? " 



Mr. Sparks : " I decline to answer questions. 

 With this I am done. And, now, having occu- 

 pied five minutes of time to say this, I hope it 

 will end the discussion so far as this side of 

 the House is concerned." 



Mr. Hawley, of Connecticut : " Mr. Chair- 

 man, I believe we have before us one of the 

 most important questions which has agitated 



Congress for years ; not altogether included in 

 the simple amendment which the Committee 

 on Military Affairs has proposed, but in the 

 general policy of which that is a part; and 

 chiefly, I may say, in the evident determina- 

 tion of the ruling majority of this House to 

 insist upon forcing upon us political riders 

 on appropriation bills. I think that involves 

 a great constitutional right, involves a com- 

 plete revolution in deliberative legislation. The 

 amendment declares : 



" That no money appropriated in this act is appro- 

 priated or shall be paid for the subsistence, equipment, 

 transportation, or compensation of any portion of the 

 Army of the Imited States to be used as a police force 

 to keep the peace at the polls at any election held 

 within any State. 



" Now, it is a little difficult to construe that 

 so as to get at the precise meaning of the gen- 

 tlemen who invented and composed it. It 

 does not say that the Army shall not be paid 

 its full rations, its full allowance for clothing, 

 for transportation, for arms, and all the pur- 

 poses for which the money is given in the bill. 

 None of it is withheld. It does not even say 

 that the Army shall not be used as a police 

 force to keep the peace. It only says that 

 none of this money shall be used for that. No 

 one doubts the power of the President of the 

 United States to put the Army anywhere he 

 pleases within the limits of our land. He has 

 the right to accumulate two companies, a regi- 

 ment, ten thousand men, if he chooses, at 

 New York, at Hartford, at Cincinnati, or at 

 Chicago. He is bound to have them wherever 

 he has reason to suppose that the laws and 

 Constitution may be defied. You can not 

 question the motive with which he places men 

 at any particular point. You may say he has 

 what you call a political motive, and we may 

 say this motive is to see that the laws shall be 

 obeyed in any emergency. He may have rea- 

 son to expect that bad men are about to defy 

 the Constitution and the laws beyond the 

 power of the civil authority to subdue, and 

 therefore he has placed the Army in such a 

 position. You have not, then, forbidden him 

 to use the Army in any way he sees fit under 

 his views of constitutional law. You only in- 

 timate that the Army shall not be used as a 

 police force. 



" But, as I said, the more important question 

 concerns the alleged right to place general 

 legislation on appropriation bills. It is a per- 

 sistent endeavor to incorporate here a revolu- 

 tionary policy, a policy revolutionary of the 

 parliamentary history of Great Britain and of 

 the United States. It is subversive of the 

 freedom of debate, of the freedom of voting. 



" What is the use of a discussion of this 

 amendment, if we are to be absolutely com- 

 pelled to take it ? The Army appropriation 

 bill is indispensable to the life of the Govern- 

 ment ; the amendment is a political and parti- 

 san measure which could wait an indefinite 

 time and could be better discussed indepen- 



