; 
 
pH8J 
 
OBEblEKCE TO THE LAW THE FOREMOST 
 DUTY OF CONGEESS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD, 
 
 OF OHIO, 
 
 m THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 'M.siVGh. 17 1880. 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 
 1880. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD 
 
 The House being in Committee of the "Whole, and having under consideration 
 the bill (H. R. No. 4924) making appropriation to supply certain deficiencies in the 
 appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1880, and for other purposes — 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : The discussion of this bill has concentrated upon 
 two topics, the public printing and the election laws. 
 
 THE PUBLIC PRINTING. 
 
 On the subject of the public printing I shall take no time, except to 
 say this : After one of the saddest histories in the experience of this 
 Government with the old contract system, which broke down by the 
 weight of its own corruption, it was developed and proved beyond 
 any controversy that in the four years preceding the administration 
 of Abraham Lincoln, out of the private profits on the public jirinting 
 and binding, the sum of $100,000 was contributed by the Public 
 Printer for political purposes, mainly to carry the democratic elec- 
 tions in Pennsylvania; and that vast contribution did not exhaust 
 the profits of the Public Printer out of the Government. This expo- 
 sure destroyed the wretched contract system ; and thereafter the Gov- 
 ernment itself assumed the responsibility of the work. At first the 
 Senate or the House of Representatives elected a Printer, as they had 
 amanifest right to do under the clause of the Constitution which gives 
 each House the power to elect its own officers. But when, by and 
 by, the office grew into a great national establishment, in which all 
 the printing and binding for all departments of the Government was 
 
done, it became manifest tliat the Senate was exercising a power of 
 appointment unwarranted by the Constitution ; and in the year 1874, 
 on the motion of Mr. Hale, of New York, a resolution was adopted 
 by a two-tliirds vote suspending the rules of the House and making 
 in order, on a sundry civil service appropriation bill, an amendment 
 to change the law and make the Printer an officer of the United 
 States, to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 
 I had charge of that bill and voted for the amendment, as did nearly 
 all my associates ; and it was adopted by the almost unanimous vote 
 of this House, both parties uniting in declaring that the old law was 
 unconstitutional, and that experience had proved it unwise ; repub- 
 licans taking their share of responsibility for their own blunders and 
 mistakes; all agreeing that the law ought to conform to the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 When the democratic party came into power in 187(5, they amended 
 that law by making it take efl'cct immediately. We had made it take 
 effect when a vacancy should occur in the office of Public Printer. In 
 187G the law was so changed as to make it take effect immediately. 
 And that i)as3ed by the general consent of both parties. The propo- 
 sition now is to go back, and, in the face of our past experience, make 
 a change in this law which will not affect in any way the question 
 of economy, which will not change one iota of the machinery of the 
 management of the public printing, and does not pretend to bo in the 
 direction of economy ; but merely abolishes a constitutional office and 
 creates an unconstitutional one ; takes the appointing power out of 
 the bauds of the President and unlawfully places it in the hands of 
 this House, merely to get some democrat into office. This is to be 
 done for no public good, but to satisfy the demands of party hunger. 
 I have no doubt that this amendment will be, as it certainly ought to 
 be, ruled out of order, and I will waste no further words in discuss- 
 ing it. 
 
 TIIK ELECTION LAWS. 
 
 I will nowcall attention, during the short time left me, to what I con- 
 sider a matter of far graver moment. My colleague, [Mr. McMaiion,] 
 in his speech opening the discussion upon this bill, made the announce- 
 ment in substance, and it remains uncontradicted and not protested 
 against by any one on his side of the House, first, that " we have not 
 
hitherto made, do not iu this bill, aud will not in any future bill, 
 make any appropriation whatever for supervisors or special deputy 
 marshals, so far as they have to do with congressional elections." He 
 asserts that it was not proper for any officer of the Government to 
 appoint special deputy marshals when no appropriation had been made 
 for that specific purpose. 
 
 Then further on he declares — I quote from his printed speech : 
 
 And I desire to say tbat because the Supreme Court of the United States has 
 decided that the election law is constitutional by a sort of eight-by-seven decision — 
 and I mean by that a division apparently according to party lines, (without im- 
 pugning the good faith of any member of the Supreme Court, but to show how dif- 
 ferently a legal question maj-appear to persona who have been educated in diflerent 
 political schools) — that although that court has decided the constitutionality of the 
 aw, that when we come, as legislators, to appropriate money it is our duty to say, 
 is this law constitutional ? or, if constitutional, is it a good law, aud are we bound 
 to appropriate money for it ? 
 
 He undertakes, as will be seen, to throw contempt on that decision 
 by styling it " a sort of eight-by-seven decision." I remind him that 
 it is a seven-to-two decision, having been adopted by a larger num- 
 ber of the members of the court than the majority of the decisions of 
 that tribunal. It is a decision of a broad, sweeping character, and 
 declares that Congress may take the whole control of congressional 
 elections, or a partial control, as they choose ; that the election law 
 as it stands on the national statute-book is the supreme law of the 
 land on that subject. 
 
 LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE THE LAWS OF EVEllY STATE. 
 
 More than that : the Supreme Court, not only in this case but in 
 another recent case, has made a declaration which ought to be en- 
 graven upon the minds and hearts of all the peo.ple of this country. 
 And this is its substance : 
 
 That a law of Congress interpenetrates aud becomes a part of eveiy law of every 
 State of this Union to which its subject-matter is applicable, and is binding upon 
 all people and covers every foot of our soil. 
 
 This is the voice of the Constitution. Now, therefore, uiulor this 
 decision the election laws of the United States are the laws of every 
 State of this Union. No judge of election, no State officer or other 
 person connected with any congressional election, no elector who 
 offers his ballot at any such election can, with impunity, lift his hand 
 
6 
 
 or do any act against any of the provisions of these laws. They rest 
 down upon congressional elections in every State like the " casing 
 air," broad and general, protecting with their dignity every act and 
 penetrating with their authority every function of congressional elec- 
 tions. They are the supreme law of the land on that subject. 
 
 CONGUESS THREATENS TO DISOBEY THE LAW. 
 
 But now a Representative, speaking for the democratic party in this 
 House, rises, not with the plea which he could have made with some 
 show of plausibility last year, that the law is unconstitutional and 
 that therefore they would not enforce it — but, with a constitutional 
 law, declared so by the Supreme Court, covering him and filling the 
 Republic from end to end, reaching everywhere and covering every 
 foot of our soil where a congressional election can be held — he rises 
 in his place and declares that the democratic party will not execute 
 that law nor permit it to be obeyed. 
 
 We who are the sworn law-makers of the nation, and ought to be 
 examples of respect for and obedience to the law — we, who before 
 we took our first step in legislation, swore before God and our coun- 
 try that we would support the supreme law of the land — we are now 
 invited to become conspicuous leaders in the violation of the law. 
 My colleague announces his purpose to break the law and invites 
 Congress to follow him in his assault upon it. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, by far the most formidable danger that threatens 
 the Republic to-day is the spirit of law-breaking which shows itself 
 in many turbulent and alarming manifestations. The people of the 
 Pacific Coast, after two years of wrestling with communism in the 
 city of San Francisco, have finally grappled with this lawless spirit, 
 and the leader of it was yesterday sentenced to penal servitude as a 
 violator of the law. But what can we say to Dennis Kearney and his 
 associates, if to-day w© announce ourselves the foremost law-breakers 
 of the country and set an example to all the turbulent and vicious 
 elements of disorder to follow us? 
 
 XIANDATOIIY niAUACTEK OF THE ELECTION LAW. 
 
 My colleague [Mr. McMaiion] tries to shield his violation of the 
 law behind a section of the statutes which provides that no disburs- 
 ing or other othcer shall make any contract involving the expendi 
 
ture of money beyond what is appropriated for the purpose. I answer 
 that I hohl in my hand a later law, a later statute, which governs 
 the restrictive law of which he speaks, which governs him and gov- 
 erns the courts. It is the election law itself. 
 
 I invite attention briefly to its substance. Sections 2011 and 2012 
 of the Revised Statutes provide that upon the application of any two 
 citizens of any city of more than twenty thousand inhabitants to have 
 a national election guarded and scrutinized, the judge of the circuit 
 court of the United States shall hold his court open during the ten 
 days preceding the election. The law commands the judge of the 
 court to so do. 
 
 In the open court from day to day, and from time to time, the judge 
 shall apiJoint, and, under the seal of the court, shall commission two 
 citizens of different political parties who are voters within the pre- 
 cinct where they reside, to be supervisors of the election. That law 
 is mandatory upon the judge. Should he refuse to obey, he can be 
 impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in of6ce. He must not 
 stop to inquire whether an appropriation has been made to pay these 
 supervisors. The rights of citizens are involved, and upon their appli- 
 cation the judge must act. 
 
 Again section 2021 provides that on the application of two citizens 
 the marshal of the United States shall appoint special deputy mar- 
 shals to protect the supervisors in the execution of their duty. And 
 the law is mandatory upon the marshal. He must obey it, under the 
 pains and penalties of the law. What then ? "When the supervisors 
 and special deputy marshals have been appointed they fiud their 
 duties plainly prescribed in the law. And then section 5521 provides 
 that if they neglect or refuse to perform fully all these duties enjoined 
 upon them, thoy are liable to fine and imprisonment. They cannot 
 excuse their neglect by paying, " We will not act because Congress 
 has not appropriated the money to pay us." All these officers are 
 confronted by the imperial command of the law— first to the judge 
 and marshal to appoint, then to the supervisor and deputy marshal 
 to act, and to act under the pains and penalties of fine and imprison- 
 ment. Impeachment enforces the obedience of the judge; fine and 
 imprisonment the obedience of the supervisors and deputy marshals. 
 
 Now comes one other mandatory order : in the last section of this 
 
8 
 
 long chapter of legislation, the majestic command of the law is ad 
 dressed both to Congress and the Treasury. It declares that there 
 "shall be paid" out of the Treasury $5 per day to these officers as 
 compensation for their services. Here too the law is equally imperi ous 
 and mandatory ; it addresses itself to the conscience of every member 
 of this House, with only this difference : we cannot be impeached for 
 disobedience; we cannot be fined or locked up in the penitentiary 
 for voting "no," and refusing the appropriation ; we cannot be fined 
 or imprisoned if we refuse to do our duty. And so, shielded by the 
 immunity of his privilege as a Representative, my colleague sets the 
 example to all officers and all people of deliberately and with clear- 
 sighted purpose violating the law of the land. 
 
 Thus he seeks to nullify the law. Thus he hopes to thwart the na- 
 tion's " collected will." 
 
 DANGER OF VITIATING THE ELECTIONS. 
 
 Does my colleague reflect that in doing this he runs the risk of 
 vitiating every national election ? Suppose his lead be followed, and 
 the demand of citizens for supervisors and marshals is made and re- 
 fused because an appropriation has not been voted. Does he not see 
 the possibility of vitiating every election, where fraud and violence 
 are not suppressed and the law has not been complied with ? Yet he 
 would risk the validity of all the congressional elections of the United 
 States. Rather than abandon his party's purpose he would make 
 Congress the chief of the law-breakers of the land. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, when I took my seat as a member of this House, I 
 took it with all the responsibilities which the place brought upon me ; 
 and among others was my duty to keep the obligations of the law. 
 Where the law speaks in mandatory terms to everybody else and then 
 to me, I should deem it cowardly and dishonorable if I should skulk 
 behind my legislative privilege for tlie pnrpose of disobeying and 
 breaking tlie supreme law of the land. [Applause.] 
 
 The issue now made is somewhat diflferent from that of the last 
 session, but, in my judgment, it is not less significant and dangerous. 
 I would gladly waive any party advantage which this controversy 
 might give, foj- the sake of that calm and settled peace which would 
 reign in this Hall if we all obeyed the law. But if the leaders on 
 the other side are still determined to rush upon their fate by forcing 
 
9 
 
 upon the country this last issue— that because the democratic party- 
 happen not to like a law they will not obey it— because they happen 
 not to approve of the spirit and character of a law they will not let 
 it be executed— I say to gentlemen on the other side if you are deter- 
 mined to make such an issue, it is high time that the American peo- 
 ple should know it. 
 
 THE SACRED CHARACTER OF THE LAW. 
 
 Here is the volume of our laws. More sacred than the twelve 
 tables of Rome, this rock of the law rises in monumental grandeur 
 alike above the people and the President, above the courts, above 
 Cono-ress, commanding everywhere reverence and obedience to its 
 supreme authority. Yet the dominant party in this House virtually 
 declares that " any part of this volume that we do not like and can- 
 not repeal we will disobey. We have tried to repeal these election 
 laws ; we have failed because we had not the constitutional power 
 to destroy them ; the Constitution says they shall stand in their au- 
 thority and power ; but we, the democratic party, in defiance of the 
 Constitution, declare that if we cannot destroy them- outright by re- 
 peal, they shall be left to crumble into ruin by wanton and lawless 
 neglect." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I ask gentlemen on the other side whether they wish 
 to maintain this attitude in regard to the legislation of this country? 
 Are they willing to start on a hunt through the statutes, and deter- 
 mine for themselves what they will obey and what they will disobey ? 
 That is the meaning of my colleague's speech. If it means anything 
 it means that. He is not an old Brandenburg elector, but an elector 
 in this novel and modern sense, that he will elect what laws he will 
 obey and what he will disobey, and in so far as his power can go, he 
 will infect with his spirit of disobedience all the good people of this 
 country who trust him. 
 
 THE DANGEROUS EXAIII'LE OF LAW-BREAKING liY CONGRESS. 
 
 I ask gentlemen whether this is a time when it is safe to disregard 
 and weaken the authority of law. In all quarters, the civil society 
 of this country is becoming honeycombed through and through by 
 disintegrating forces— in some States by the violation of contracts 
 and the repudiation of debts ; in others by open resistance and defi- 
 ance ; in still others by the reckless overturning of coustitutioiis and 
 
10 
 
 letting "the red fool-fury of the Seine" run riot among our people and 
 Luild its blazing altars to the strange gods of ruin and misrule. All 
 these things are shaking the good order of society and threatening the 
 foundations of our Government and our peace. In a time like this, 
 more than ever before, this country needs a body of law-givers clothed 
 and in their right minds, who will lay their hands upon the altar of 
 the law as its defenders, not its destroyers. And yet now, in the name 
 of party, for some supposed party advantage, my colleague from Ohio 
 announces, and no one on his side has said him nay, that they not 
 only have not in the past obeyed but in the future they will not obey 
 this law of the laud which the Supreme Court has just crowned with 
 the authority of its sanction. If my colleague chooses to meet that 
 issue, if he chooses to go to the country with that plea, I shall regret 
 it deeply for my country's sake ; but if I looked only to my party's 
 interest, it would give me joy to engage in such a struggle. 
 
 The contest of last autumn made the people understand the tend- 
 encies of gentlemen on the other side. Now, this cool, calm, delib- 
 erate, assassination of the law will not be tolerated. We have had a 
 winter to freeze out our passion, we have had a summer to thaw out 
 our indifference, we have had the changing circles of the year to 
 bring us around to order and calmness, and yet all the stars in their 
 courses seem to have shed their influence on my colleague to Are him 
 with a more desperate madness and drive his party on to a still sad- 
 der fate. [Applause on the republican side.] 
 
 I trust and believe that we may yet find some responses from the 
 other side of the House that ^v ill prevent this course of procedure. 
 If we do, I will gladly give away any party advantage for the sake of 
 strengthening the foundations of law and good order. And I there- 
 fore appeal to gentlemen on the other side to prevent a disaster which 
 their party leaders are preparing, not for themselves alone, but for 
 our common country. I hope before this day is over we may see such 
 a vote in this Chamber uiion this bill as will put an end to this mis- 
 erable business, and cast out of these halls the dregs of that unfortu- 
 nate and crazy extra sessiou. [Applause on the republican side.] 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 789 626 6 
 
 I