234 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



standing up here for free elections and against 

 the Brazilian subsidy." 



The Speaker : " The question is on the 

 motion of the gentleman from New York that 

 the House further insist upon its disagreement 

 to the Senate amendment to the army appro- 

 priation bill." 



The motion of Mr. Hewitt of New York was 

 then agreed to. 



Mr. Hewitt moved to reconsider the vote 

 just taken ; and also moved that the motion to 

 reconsider be laid on the table. 



The latter motion was agreed to. 



So the bill failed to become a law. 



In the House on February 26th the bill 

 making appropriations for the Legislative, 

 Executive, and Judicial departments of the 

 government was considered in Committee of 

 the Whole. 



The Chairman: "The question is upon the 

 amendments offered by the gentleman from 

 Ohio [Mr. Southard], which the Clerk will 

 now read." 



The Clerk read Mr. Southard's amendments, 

 as follows : 



That the several sections of the Eevised Statutes of 

 the United States, from and including section 2011 to 

 and including 2031, and all other provisions of law 

 authorizing the appointment of, or the performance of 

 any duty by, any chief or other supervisor of elec- 

 tions, or any special deputy marshal, or other deputy 

 marshal of elections, or the payment of any money to 

 any such supervisor or deputy marshal of elections 

 for any services performed as such, be, and the same 

 are hereby, repealed. 



Mr. Hayes of Illinois said : " It is scarcely 

 necessary to remark that I am most decidedly 

 opposed to the amendment offered by the 

 gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Southard], and 

 hope to see it voted down by an overwhelming 

 majority. The reasons upon which I base my 

 opposition are two : first, because I believe it 

 to be bad policy to legislate in regard to gen- 

 eral matters in an appropriation bill ; and sec- 

 ond, because I heartily approve those portions 

 of our law which this amendment proposes to 

 repeal, and am in favor of letting them remain 

 as they now are upon our statute-book. "What 

 is this law, let me ask, or rather what are its 

 provisions? The law simply provides that in 

 certain cases the United States court shall ap- 

 point persons to act as supervisors of elections, 

 and makes it the duty of United States mar- 

 shals under certain circumstances to assist 

 these supervisors in the discharge of their du- 

 ties. The sole object of the law is to prevent 

 fraud at the ballot-box and secure free, fair, 

 and honest elections. This being so, why is 

 it that the gentlemen on the other side are so 

 hostile to it? Are they not in favor of fair 

 and honest elections of preserving the purity 

 of the ballot-box? It would certainly seem 

 not, if we are to judge from the bitter war 

 they are making against this law. I am free 

 to confess, sir, that I can not see what objec- 



tion any honest man can urge against the law 

 as it now stands. I can not see why any one 

 who is anxious to have fair and honest elec- 

 tions in this country should ask for its repeal. 

 The fact is, the war against this law is waged 

 not so much by men who want fair and honest 

 elections, as by mere politicians who hope, by 

 wiping out this law, to advance the interests 

 of the Democratic party, and thus help for- 

 ward their own ambitious schemes. There 

 is method in what these men are doing, and 

 it will be well for us before we give our votes 

 in favor of this amendment to pause and con- 

 sider the meaning of the demand for its pas- 

 sage, to pause and consider what peculiar sig- 

 nificance attaches to this cry that comes up 

 from a Democratic caucus, asking that this 

 law be repealed. Why, sir, this cry is nothing 

 but a note of alarm, a signal of distress. The 

 Democratic party is in trouble, and this House 

 is called upon to help it out. The future looks 

 dark for that party unless some relief is fur- 

 nished at once. 



" The enforcement of this law by President 

 Hayes has sent terror to Democratic leaders 

 everywhere. As the law goes forth and does 

 its work, they see the immense Democratic 

 majorities in such cities as New York almost 

 entirely wiped out. They see their friends 

 and supporters in South Carolina, Louisiana, 

 Florida, Maryland, and New York arrested, 

 tried, convicted, and sent to the penitentiary. 

 These facts lead them to fear for the future of 

 their party. They know that if this law is 

 suffered to remain upon the statute-book and 

 is enforced, our penitentiaries will soon be 

 filled with Democratic voters. They know, 

 too, that this law, honestly and fearlessly exe- 

 cuted, would wipe out the heavy Democratic 

 majorities in many localities, both North and 

 South. They understand fully that while this 

 law is in the interest of honest elections and 

 good government, it is not in the interest of 

 the Democratic party, and hence they have 

 resolved to blot it out. 



" Now, sir, I do not blame the Democratic 

 leaders much for being alarmed at the situa- 

 tion. The signs of the times are ominous. 

 This law is cutting down Democratic majori- 

 ties fearfully. Already hosts of Democratic 

 voters have fallen beneath its unsparing hand. 

 No less than two stalwart Democrats who 

 claim to be elected to the Forty-sixth Con- 

 gress are already indicted for election frauds, 

 and may be landed in the penitentiary any 

 day. Why, sir, if this thing is allowed to go 

 on much longer, the Democrats may find them- 

 selves in a hopeless minority in the next House. 

 But this is only a part of the danger that 

 threatens our Democratic friends. If this law 

 continues in force until 1880, and under its 

 operation we can get a fair and honest elec- 

 tion, not only will the Democrats not be able 

 to elect their candidate for President, but 

 many of our Democratic friends on this floor 

 will be retired to the ranks of private life. 



