The Army Bill

Mr. Davis (índ., 111.) said that Caucus is an important factor Ín American politics, and both tlie great parties of the country employ its agency on tlie theory that party action is most easily perfected by tliis niethod. lie did not complain of tlie mode adopted to reach the results, but, as he had been for many years viewing public affairs f rom an independent standpoint, it did not help him any to decide any question that might come before the Senate. Althoughusually preferring to give a silent vote, he could not suffer the measure to be passed without saying something on the subject. The heat that had been manifested on the occasion of this debate had surprised liim, if anything could surprise him in politics. A stranger, unaccustomed to our modes of debate, would suppose that the Union was in danger, and that the old questions, passions, prejedices and purposes which ït had been thought were laid aside forever, were again revived ; and tuis. too. 14 years after the rebellion was conquered, and when there was no compiaint Trom ui y quarter that the federal compact presses too hard upon one section at the expense of another, and when the federal government is obeyed thronghout the entire south. He continued: There does not seem to be the.least ground for the excitement ana biuerness tnat nave characterized the discussions in Congress at this session, and I should be amazed were it not that the record of all parties that majorities invariably commit legislative wrongs, and minorities invariably protest against them. If it be true, as charged, that the success of one of the great parties of the country means revolution and ruin to constitutional liberty, of what value would be the securities of government or indeed any other species of property ? In the nature of things, if revolution was impending, or there was any danger apprehended to free government or popular libertv. the Government would not be able to sell its bonds at 4 per cent interest, nor the stock market in New York maintain its present high rate. This charge Mr. President, is a mere fiction, and has no foundation, but it promises infinite mischief and tends to demoralize the country and every material interest in it, alarms the thoughtless and timid, unsettles business and values, and produces a state of unrest in every eommunity. It inay succeed in winning elections, but it cannot restore prosperity. Tliat great object can never be accomplished through the continuance of sectional strife and the violence that accompanies it. Nor do I believe that the people are in the mood for this kind of politics. They have had more than flve years harsh experience.and they want to find some mode of relief from their present suffering and impoverished condition, and they will honor the statesman who contributes to the stock of knowledge on this subject rather than the political ladder who will not let the past alone.' I have no present concern, Mr. President, in the rise and f all of parties, but I am deeply solicitous that the affairs of the Government shall be so administered that labor seeking employment can obtain it, that all industrial pursuits will be suitably rewarded, and that heart given to the people, north and south, to work out their present embarassments. "We are one people, of the same blood, and with the same destiny ; and unity of feeling is essential to lift us out of the mire and to help us on the road to prosperity. The different parts of our common country are so intimately connected in trade and commerce that, as a general rule, whatever injuriously affects one part lias a corresponding effect on the other, and whatever benettts one beiteiits the other. It is, Mr. President, in my judgment the imperative duty of the hour, instead of turning the attention of the people back into history, with its animosities, to direct it to the iroubled business interests of the country and the way to relieve theni. With the past buried, and discussions on living issues, the people would soon regain the confldence which is essential in any plan for relieving the present hard times. It may be that such a course would affect the fortunes of partios, for both parties in Congress, on any question of piactical legislation, fall to pieces, but it would have a most beneficial effect upon the fortunes of the country. Without intending to reflect upon the patriotism of elther party, it does appear to me that the speeches on the pending bilí do not represent the wishes or opinión of the masses of the people of either section. Experience has taught them that mate business principies wliich lead to wealth and social happiness require a cessation from agitation on past subjects, and that sound policy dictates the cultivation of peace and good will between the sections. The country, Mr. President, cannot be prosperous so long as the old conflict between the North and South is used, at each recumng Presidential electton, as an instrumentality of party success, and the statesman who shall rise equal to the occasion and put it at rest will receive the gratitude of the suffering people. The bill before us is for the support of the array for the ensuing fiscal year. lt is attacked because the Cth section alters two provisión of the Revised Statutes. Section 2,002 of these statutes reads as f ollows : "No military or naval officer, or other perbou engaged in the military, civil or naval service of the United States, shall order, bring, keep or have under hia authority or control, any troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any state, unless it be necesBary to repel armed enemies of the United States or to keep peace at the polls." Section 5528 is in these words : w- mi ofRner of the army or navy, or other person in the civil, military or n._i -„..„;„„ „f the United Staten, who orders, brings, keeps or has under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held in any state, unless Buch f orce be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, or to keep peace at the polls, shall be fined not more than $5,000, and suffer imprisonment at hard labor not less than three months or more than five years." These sections, though widely í ated in the Revised Statutes, are paris 1 of a general law passed on the 2,rth of 1 February, 1865, "to prevent offlcers of i the army and navy, and other persons engaged In the service, from 1 ing in elections in the States" (13 i Statutes at large, page 437). The first section denounces the use of troops at elections except in two specifled cases and the other provided penalties for disobedience. The two excepted cases are when troops were necessary to repel armed enemies oí the United States, or to keep peace at polls. The sixth section of the appropriation bill proposes to strike out from both sections the words "or to keep peace at the polls," and nothing more, so that the army cannot be used hereafter at elections for any purpose. As an abstract proposition, could there be any rational objection tothis? üught the army to be used at the polls when there has been profound peace for more than a decade'? Does any one believe that such a law would ever have received the approval of the American C'ongress if it had been brought forward in time of peace ? It was nmaad when a formidable civil war was in progresa taxing to the utmost the resources of the country In the opinión of the patriot of that day the state of feeling in certain parts of the country was of such a character as to eiulanger peaoeful elections, while war lasted, unless a mighty forcé was kept in readiness for any outbreak of popular commotion. This was the conviction that prompted the legislation. liut I venture to say that no one of the eminent men who voted for it intended or expected that it would remain a part of the permanent law of the land. They would too well read in the lessons of history and the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon race to believe that a free people would tolérate, except in great emergencies like a war waged for the maintenance of the Union the ir.terference of military in civil concerns; and they were men of principie, and did not wish to be otherwise. It is no new thing in time or war. lndeeu, no wise statesman will hesitate to do it, if the law be unsuitable to the changed condition of things. It is a part of the very nature of e very man of our race to rebel against anything which interferes with the freedom of elections, and the days of the Jtepublic are numbered if the people ever consent to place the ballot-box under the protection of the bayonet. But, Mr. President, this consent will never be obtained until they have forgotten the principies of constituüonal liberty and the precedents set bv the Cpmmons of Engeland. Can it be possible that a principie 01 wmmon law, a right of the people to have an election free from the presence of troops, so dear to Englishmen 100 years ago, is not equally dear to their decendantsof the present day? Mr. President, it will require some one now living to write accurately the history of these times, for the future historian will be slow to believe that there was any basis on which to rest sucli an inquiry in the Congress of the United States during the latter part of the lOth century. Why, then, should not the law of 1805 be altered in the manner proposed by this bill ? It is said that President Lincoln signed it, and the inference is that it would reflect on his memory to change it. To say the least, this is a pretty strongpresumption from such a predicate. No man loved Mr. Lincoln better or honored his memory more than I do, nor had any one greater opportunities to leavn the constitution of his mind and character and his habits of thought. He was largehearted, wiser than those associateil with him, full of sympathy for struggling humanity, without malice, with charity for erring man, loving his whole country with deep devotion and intensity, anxious to save it. Believing as I do, that he was raised up by Providence for the great crisis of the war of the rebellion, I have an equal belief that, had he lived, we would have been spared much of the strife of these latter days, and that we would be on the high road to prosperity. Such a man, hating all forms of oppression, and deeply imbued with the principie that induced the men of 1776 to resist the stamp tax, would never have willingly intrusted the power to anyone, unless war was flagrant, to send troops to oversee an election. Why, then, I repeat, should not the proposed measurepass? ïhere is no rebellion, nor any threatened, nor any domestic uproar anywhere. The Union is cemented by the blood that war shed in the defence of its integrity, the laws are obeyed, north and south, east and west, and our only real differences relate to the administration of the internal affairs of the (rovernment. The charge that this is revolutionary legislation has no forcé. It might be called a partizan device. Congress has power, under the Constitution, to raise and equip armies, and the House of Bepresentatives noia me punse strings. In the pending nmy bill nothing is proposedbut to strike out a single clause forbidding the presence of troops at the polls. In 110 respect is the authority of the President to answer a cali to repel invasión or to suppress insurrection in any way abridged. The amendment is germane to the bill and is simply a condition as to the use of the iinny, which the peoples' representalives have a perfect right to impose. It is not in any proper sense general legislation, and, if it was, the statute hooks are full of precedenta that the friendsof the present measure might cite against their opponents. Whether the clause in question ought to be repealed is a fair subject for discussion, but the forin of presenting it is not liable to just criticism. Personally, I should have preferred to vote on the proposition as an independent bill, because the practice of both parties of legislating on appropriation bilis is "more to be honored in the breach than in the observance." If this course had been pursued, it is probable that the whole debate would have been less acrimonious and the excitement which has followed it could never have been worked up to so high a pitch. It has been alleged that there is n attempt to coerce the executive in this bill. Certainly none appears on the surface, and he is left entirely free to exercise his own judgment, if it should be sent to him in the present or in a mudlflud L■,„ t„ iisaimi that he will approve or will veto it, or to introduce him in any way into this debate, is a depártate from a wise usage. The President's sphere of action is deflned by the Constitution, and any attempt to influence legislation by suggestions of what he may or may not do is an obtrusion deserving rebuke. It will be time enough to criticise the acts of the President when he shall have exercised his constitutional right, and any discussion of his supposed course before then is wholly out of place in this body. Let us hope, Mr. Presiden , when this bill has passed from our hands, that the angry debate which has attended it will opérate as electricity does, in purifying the atmosphere. and that we will all come together better disposed to give to the country what has been given to the party in a united eftort to provide relief for prevailing distress in every pursuit of life.