Mr. Thurman

On the 15tb inst., in the U. S. Setate, Mr. Thumian said they had bfore them an appropriation bill for tl:e support of the Ugislative, executive and judicial branches of the governmeut. Nobody denied that the amount was sufflcient, but oppcsitiou had been made to the bill beeause of !he provisious ïelating to trial by jury and to the elections. Kather ihan agree to these the minority say in efft et that they will stop the appropriatious ud itefeat the bill. Scareely any word had been uttertd by the minority on theuieritsof thisquestion. It was said that these provisions had no proper plaie in the Appropriation bill and that they were diotated by the South, because the gentlemen in their 'r-f)lnttrtTl upposed theie was a huge consuiraey to produce anarchy, as if the naajorlty here and the Demócrata and people of the United S'.ates have uot aamueh interest in the or.ler, peace and prosperity of the country and perpetulty ot the government as any meuiber belonging to the Repub lican or any other party. The most inflanamatory, unfoundedand urjustifiable attempt had been made to airay on e portion of the people against the other, thus enduavoring to make sec ttoiialietn as permanent as the continent H.-elf. Why did net these gentknien point out the defectsof the [rovisloDB, if they believe they exist'? Tüey were tol i that these provisions were inserted at the corumaiid f Southern domination, but there was not a word of truth in it. They were uot in the interest of Southern nici, or of Northern men particulaily, but in the interest of all the people of the country. These laws were pretended, wben passed, to be for the protection of the freeimen in the South against the Ku-Klux, but their real or.ject waa to oppre&s the voters in theNonh, and tspecially to disfranchise, imprison and persueute naturalizad citizens of the North. Mr. Thurman proceeded to analjze the laws proposed to be repealed, and argued that they were, in the utmos-t degree, opprtssive, as thcy shut out intelligence from the jury box and punished those whn could nottake the ironclad oath. because they had giveu a cup of cold water, even to anyone who had opposed the sovernment. If the law was justiliabfe in war it waa not aonow, at a time wbeii all should uuitein the pacifioation of thecountry and restore harmony every where. We should go back to the old paths of justice. Under sections 820 and 821 all the parties in a suit and all the counsel are saüsfied. In steps the United States District Attorney and calis tfce court'B attention to the presence in the jury box of men who gave aid or comfort to the rebtllion by clothing a poor soldier, whose bare feet were bleeding in the irost and snow and for Ueing so vile as to believe that the story e f the good Samaritan was tcld us lor our imitation. Those men are exeluded from the jury box, if the judge so directs. Tijis is not an iuipo.-sible case. It bas taken-place since we have been iu this chamber. Suoh laws would disgrace the King of Dahooiej'. Was the (Iemand to return to the oid, welltrodden patha oí justice and legal procedure a matter 10 fire the Nortlieru miud and set all the demagogiresnorth of Mason aud Dixon's line dtclaiming l against the designs of the Democratie party ? Mr. Tnurman maintalned tliat the laws now sought tobe repealed were not a constitutional exercise of the power to regúlate the elections, for it 8 fundameutal that Cougress cannot, uuder article 1, section 4, interfere in any nuanner with the eleetion of State ofricers, and any regulation for Oongres-sional elections enacted by Congress must be so frained as not to so interftre. No legal proposition was ever clearer to hiin than that. He proceeded to show that under the ex isting laws, persons preventcd fiom votiog for Congressmen or for Presidential electora were at the same time prevented frooi voting for local and State offlcers. Article 1, t eet ion 4. would never have been adopted lf our fathers had foreseeu the uses to which it would be put, but even if these laws were constitutional they ought to be repealed, for ins-tead ot being in the interest of pure and honest tlections, the mindof man never deviseda worse instrument of fraud, corruption aud oppression than these laws. Wheu tbey werepassedonly eight Demoerats were here and they were powerless to prevent their adoption. Mr. Conklitig (Rep., N. Y.) asked if it were possible that eight men would have made so much noise as was made on that occasion. Mr. Thurman said these eight men were inspiied. [Laughter ] They stood up for the Oonstitutiou and for honest elections, aud naturally made a noise aud something besidts noise. It was argument for argument, and argument had its effect. It, has (lied these seats and lncrea&ed the numler of Deiuocrals from seven, as when he tiit-t came here, uutil they spread out and reached over iuto the promised land. He did not believe at that time that these laws were passed to proteüt the freedinen, and history had showu his incredulity to be well founded. They originated iu the City of New York in the Union League Club, a partisau political club. He read from the report of the Committee on Expendituresin iheDepartmeut of Ji.stice of the Forty-fourlh Cougress. The testimony of Samuel J. Gloson before tliat committeesbowed him to have been the chief counsel employcd by that club to get up these laws, and tberefore he will be aokhow!edized bv theother sldeof the Senateat least as a respectable man. He was a?sisted by a mau not so respectable, and who has become quite hitrtorical - one John I. Davenport Mr. Thurmau read from the testimony at length, howing what nuiisures the Union League Club took to procure the passage of these laws, and the couneetion of Da ven port wiih tbem. When the laws were first proposed they contained money provisions uot ultimately passed. As at li rat propoeed they alniost disfranchised every uaturalizedcitizen in the United States, made it almost impossible to benaturalized, and gave nonaturalized citizen security in his righttovote. Mr. Thuruuau called (Senator Morton'sattention to theto provisions and said: "Mr. Morton, you cannot support those sections." He said, after examining them, "certaiuly I cannot," and heused hisiufluenceagainst them and sothey were defeatcd. The laws originatediu the Union League Club, and were paseed for party purposes and not at all for the protectioo of the freedmen. He would cite soine figures to sup porthisasfrcrtions. In 1876there were 4,8(3 supervisors of election appoiated auder these laws, of which 1,779 were appointedin theStateof New York - nearly one-half of the wliole nurnber. 'Diere were 11,610 marshals, inore than one-fourtLofthemin New York. Tbe main paint ia, where did tbe money go? I n that year thero was expended $28ö 921. How much was expended to protect tbe poor freedmen down in the country where the night, rider, the White Leaguer and the Ku-Klux oppre-ts him ? In theten Soul hem States there was expended $48,719, and in othtr States $237,250 was disbureed- that is lo say. about onesixth of the money went to the. South and fivesixths to the North. That is where the fretdman was proteged. They made he South give tlie uegro a right to vote, bilt when it carne tousingthe money of the United States, for every dollar they gave to protect him they pent five to corrupt the electionsatthe North and todeprivemen of theirright to vote there. TheSena'orfrom New York (ConkWti's) had carefully euumerated the different va.riety of things, shoulderblttersand roughs whicb forined apart oriil Cotmtimeiioy. IfNew York City were raked f rom Harlem to the Battery there could not be found in it a vvorae set of men than the dcputy marshals selected iu 1876 and 1878 to exeoutti these lawa. Of the $237,2.50 spent in the North in 1876, $156,000- being more t han one-balf - was sent to New Yoik Shite. The roughs of adjacent State did notlike toseetheirbrethreu in New York getting all the inoney, so to pacify tbem some was sent out of tbat State. Tbirty-seven tbousand dollars went to Pennaylvania. That was enouijh, because the local managers of the machine in Philadelphia knew how to manage elections perlectly, and diil not needany help trom Federal supervisors lo secure the election of Kepiiblicans; but $37,000 was speut in Peunsylvania to aatisfy the clamor of the roughs. Then they paid some attention to Baltimore, and sent $12,000 to Maryland. Jersey City was a pretiy important town, and got $12,776. Noi much, but it helped to pacify the brethrpn In these four States. New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland absorbed $217,000 of the $285 'OOO, leaving $68,000 for the other ihirty States. In 1878 ttiere were 4,881 supervisors, of whicu 1,953 were in New York and 1,862 in Pennsylvania. leaving only 1,066 for all the other States. Of the 4,725 marshals more than half were iu New York. The expenditures were $222,714, of whieh ouly $18.241 went South. The gains of the Re publican party in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will show why this tnoney was spent in the North. Iu one single election fourteen Representatives were gained, and eingularly enoush the greatest gain was where the most money was spent. Mr. Thurnian saiü there was evideuce that this rnoney was gpent corruplly in the seiection of deputy marshals. Persons thought to be purchasable were sent for and asked ifthey would work for the Republican candidate, and upon promising to do so they wc re appointed deputitM. In this manner a Hrge Democratie majority was deslroytd in certain districts. If he Dfmocrats were toobtnin power, Mareta 4, 1881 - and there was sucU a blesaiugas a Democratie President - the Republicana would clamor for a repeal of these laws more loudly than tbey ery now against ir. They would not trust such power over the public purse and officera with a Democratie President and anoiher ox would be goreil then. Mr. Thurrnan said it would surprise sorue to learu how Davenport bad feathered his own nest. Without speaking of the 8,000 affldavits at ten cents each which he tuude out againsi the people for false regiítration six montha before they offered to register, he would refer to otber evidenees of his coiruption, because it was right that this mac sliould be lield up to eternal infaray. He showed how $34000 of the secret service fund got into Davtiiport's hands and was never accounteu lor to the govermnent. He hated to deal with such a fe'.low, but he was :i UiOEt potential man in the country. A formtr doorkeeper had joking'ly said of himself thathewas 'la biger man than ole Ünvnt," but this man isa bigger man than half a dozen such Presidenta as we have uow in controlling elections. He meant no dierespect to the President. Hecould riot turn up his uose with Senatorial dignity and iguore tbis man. It was notapismire uu der bis foot, but an elephant. He read the testimony showiug Daveuport's acquinillon f wealth since his appointment to i.fflce, and said Johnnieprospered and is a f ruit ful tree, tliougli the fruit is of a very bad kind. He harl intenited to say somethlng ahout the Arniy bill and veto, though he preferred to stick to his ttxt. In hisjudgmtnt there was neverso inexcusable an txercise of the veto power as in the vetoes lately pent to tbem. It is the first time a President has vetoed an appropriatinn bill, and the Brit time a bill has been vttoed because it repealed existing luw. The veto power was intended as a check upon unconstitutional, hasty and ill considerrd legislation, or te enable the Execulive Department to deiend itselffrem the encroachment by the Legislative Department. It is aho the rirst time a President in a message has quoted the remarks of Senators and Representatives in Congress to impute to them improper motives. He erjlarged upon the impropriety of such allusions. There were other strange things about the messages. In the flret message the President was understood that troope eould not be used at the eleo IÍOB8 under the laws, butin thesecond he lells us the g-overnmeut might be overthrowB if tbe military could not I be used on eleotion dtiys. Was there I ever so thoroughly shallow, he would not say conteniptïble, but ao transpareu t a sophistry as this? In conclusión Mr. Thurman said he had never been more pained than by the course of the debate in oppositiou to this bill. It had bteu made the occasion of reviving seclional hatred. I He appealed to every caudid man to say if the course of the Democratie party, and esptcially of the Southern members, warranttd such course. The Southern States are an integral part of the Union, and its citizens are kh mueh iutertsted as auy in its welfare, and as fully entitled as any to try to promote that welfare accordiDg to their couvictioiis. Ifeuch appeals resulted in making the North solid to rule forevrr otbtr tectiODt he would i despair of there ever beiugarealunion ; in ihis country. He warntd the men ! engaged in this attempt to créate sectlouaTlsm that secüonalism might in f he future bedrawn by other lines than Mason and Dixon's. It might take j other shape, aud they who now are I most auxious to promoteit andgovern ! by atolid North may flnd that there I is another solidarity that will govera tliem.