[Part of the Congressional Record.] SI* JEEOH OF LOGAN O TP ILLINOIS, In the Senate of the United States, Tuesday, April 15, 1879. The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. x) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes— Mr. LOGAN said. Mr. President : It is not my present purpose to discuss the questions presented in this bill to the extent and with the exhaustiveness I might desire, even were the principles involved less momentous or fraught with consequences less grave and far- reaching than they are. I cannot but regard the question which has arisen from this first move of the democratic party upon their re-establishment in power looking to the grasping of the Government as absolutely the most important as well as the most vital question which has presented itself as a menace to our Government since the year 1861, when the same sentiment, as well as many of the same men, aimed a blow at the in teg rity of our county. Entertaining this view of the importance of the question, I be¬ lieve it to be not alone the privilege but the bounden duty of every representative o'' the people to give it his serious attention and to lend his best efforts toward its wisest and most fortunate solution. In acting upon this view of the case, it is my purpose to contribute the mite of whatever thought I may have given the question to the discussion; but at the same time, to present my views as succinctly as possible, that I may not deprive the coun¬ try and myself of the statement of the opinions of others which may have a greater value to the general interest than the expressions of my own. The question before this Congress has been most ably discussed by both parties in many of its aspects, and the eloquence and erudition of the leaders have thrown much light upon principles, as to which there has been great obscurity in the popula i mind. The arguments have, however, chiefly run upon the propriety, the expedi¬ ency, and the constitutionality of attaching legislative enactments to appropriation bills, and while having no disposition to recapitulate or resay what perhaps has been already better said upon this particular branch of the subject, I may be indulged in a few remarks upon it, rather as a preliminary to the line of argument upon which I propose its treatment. The first thing, Mr. President, which would seem to strike an impartial ob¬ server is the determined purpose to accomplish by indirection an end which it is out of the power of its friends to accomplish fairly and according to the usual methods of legislation This is a bad introduction of any measure under a form of government like our own. If we lived under a monarch from whom we were compelled to wring by strat¬ agem and force every concession to right and justice, we should seek some such way 2 as that by which it has been attempted to compel legislation in a manner not con¬ templated by the letter and spirit of our Constitution. But the people are the Sovereigns of our country, and that measure which can¬ not go before them on its merits and abide the time and manner of their decision is weak, probably bad; and almost certainly in the interest of the few as against the in¬ terest of the many. Look for a moment, sir, at the history of this measure which proposes legislation of the most radical character. At no period of its history has the measure appeared in the form of independent legislation. Originally introduced into the last House when the Senate was republican in its majority, the evident pur¬ pose was to compel the Senate’s acquiescence in a proposition which, as a measure appealing to their judgment and sense of right, they could not indorse. Now that the majority of the Senate has become democratic it is again before Congress with the expectation that the Senate in passing it will assist in influencing the last obsta¬ cle to its success, the presidential scrutiny. Plainly enough this course implies compulsion; unusual and unrecognized meth¬ ods of accomplishment, as well as a fear to abide by the test of inherent merit, note the violent circumstances, so to speak, under which it was forced upon the last Con¬ gress-parliamentary rules providing that no legislation should be affixed to appro¬ priation bills unless not only germane to the subject but likewise retrenching in character must be overridden, rendered useless and nugatory, in order to force this character of legislation upon the country. I have no desire to criticise the purposes of any legislator in the discharge of his functions, but I draw attention to this point as tending to show the determination to consummate this piece of proposed legisla¬ tion against time, against argument, against the co-operative branches of the Gov¬ ernment, and against the people, who it must be presumed are not to be trusted with the decision of this question. Now, sir, I say the methods by which this legislation is attempted are bad upon their face, anti argue in convincing terms againse its propriety. The attempt has been made to show republican precedent, and to establish the justification of usage thereby. Recognized usage is the natural offspring of equity, and when it is vio¬ lated usage must cease or bear the aspects of wrongs. If the republicans as a party have perpetrated acts manifestly wrong, the precedent they establish does not just¬ ify a repetition' of wrong by others, charged with duties of the most responsible character; and weighted with perplexities and embarrassments by those who were putting forth every effort to drag down the Government, it would be strange, indeed, if they could draw the country through the terrible ordeal which confronted it, pre¬ serve its integrity, and re-establish it upon its original basis of equality and just¬ ice without the commission of many mistakes. To do so would argue a perfection in human judgment scarcely to be hoped for, much less to be realized. But as a matter of fact, sir, there is no precedent for this manner of legislation in anything which the republican party has ever done. Its import does not consist simply in tacking words which consummate or es¬ tablish legislation upon a bill which of itself is not legislation in character. In one sense this may have been done, and wdiile it is an objectionable method and should not be tolerated in the future, it does not compass the pernicious effect of the measure before us. What is that? What is that effect, sir? It lies wholly in the spirit of the method, and not so much in the method itself; when it has been done heretofore by the republicans, it was done not to force others to an act which in the ordinary mode they could prevent, but as conservative of time alone. If there be an instance on record by which it appears a President signed an appropriation bill containing items of extraneous legislation under protest, it was when the dominant party had a majority sufficiently great to pass it over his veto. Hence it cannot be said that the bill was duly enacted only through compulsion of one of the prescribed parties to it. But, sir, there is no such state of case with this bill. Our Government is one of co-ordinate powers which have mutual duties, independent responsibilities, and separate checks one upon the other. If one branch of the Government takes away the freedom of action of the others, it usurps the powers, privileges, and functions of the whole. Now, sir, this constitutes coercion of the boldest, rankest kind. The measure being coercive is certainly against the spirit of the Constitution and, being so, is revolutionary to the last degree. The logic of this exclusion is so inevitable as to permit no outlet for escape. In tlie debate which has taken place on this bill, instances were adduced in suf¬ ficient number to show most convincingly how either House of Congress, by a re¬ fusal to perform its constitutionally prescribed duties, or by performing them in a manner not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, might disrupt the Gov¬ ernment as effectually as though accomplished by sword and gun, and the illustra¬ tion might have been carried much further, which I will not take the time of the Senate in doing. The example, sir, of other governments, even if they corresponded in essential points of resemblance to our own, and those examples which have been heretofore cited by the supporters of this measure do not so correspond, would afford no salu¬ tary precedent for our own procedure. Why ? Because the Constitution and genius of our governmental fabric are so entirely different as to furnish no precise points of correspondence from which to draw parallel illustrations. Being purely a Govern¬ ment of consentaneous powers in its legislative and executive features, the moment the free agency of one of the elements is interferred with that moment is violence done to the genius of the structure, and that moment is the ideal of republican gov¬ ernment dissolved and hidden in the dark shadows of a government by force. The principle may live, sir, but the tangible essence will vanish. Now, sir, if legitimacy of principle of compelling one @r two branches of the Government to yield to the other that free agency which constitutes one of the beau¬ ties and safe-guards of the Republic be firmly established, then is it but a simple question of time and incident as to the precise period when the Government will go to pieces like a ship upon the rocks, and the American may exclaim with the Roman general, “Actum est de republican ‘ 4 It is all over with the Republic.’.’ This destruction will not come of necessity from the action contemplated in this bill ; it will not this year, nor probably the next; but year by year encroach¬ ments will be made in this direction and in that direction ; first one safeguard will be overturned and then another; to-day we shall have a statute repealed by indi¬ rect methods, and next year we may have the provisions of the Constitution itself subverted by the simple action of one branch of the National Government. Let no gentlemen say this is an overdrawn picture or that it forms the wild vision of an alarmist. There is no safety, Mr. President, in the course which our Democratic friends are pursuing in reference to this measure ; no safety for the South ; no safety for the North in their individual aspects, and no safety for them under the now proud aegis of their National Union. But, sir, our opponents say the President must approve this bill or the Government must go to pieces for want of supplies. With the knife at the throat of the executive department of the Gov¬ ernment, the demand is, “ Yield your constitutional prerogative or starve.” Rep¬ resentatives, too, who prate from morning until night about the infraction of the Constitution, tyranny and force by the Republican party ! Sir, is it a new doctrine to these gentlemen that the Executive under the Constitution lias the same right to a free exercise of judgment on the merits of a bill presented for his signature in signing or withholding his signature that they have in voting for or voting against a bill ? Let me here call attention on this point to the doctrine of the Democracy in days gone by. I will read from the message of President Pierce of February 17, 1855. This message was sent to the Senate and House of Representative, vetoing the French spoilation bill, and in it the President used the following language speaking of the power vested in the Executive : He is not invested with power to defeat legislation by an absolute veto, but only to re¬ strain it, and is charged with the duty, in case be disapproves a measure, of invoking a second, and a more deliberate and solemn consideration of it on the part of Congress. It is not incumbent on the President to sign a bill as a matter of course, and thus merely to au¬ thenticate the action of Congress, for he must exercise intelligent judgment, or be faithless to the trust reposed in him. ***** * * * £ While the Constitution thus confers on the legislative bodies the complete power of legislation in all cases, it proceeds, in the spirit of justice, to provide for the protection of the responsibility of the President. It does not comped him to affix the signature of ap¬ proval to any bill unless it actually have his approbation ; for, while it requires him to sign if he approve, it, in mv judgment, imposes upon him the duty of withholding his signa¬ ture if he do not approve. 3 * jj; The President’s responsibility is to the whole people of the United States ; as that of a Senator is to the people of a particular State ; that of a Representative to the people of a State or district ; and it may be safely assumed that lie will not resort to the clearly defined and limited power of arresting legislation, and calling for reconsideration 4 of any measure, except in obedience to requirements of duty. When, however, he enter¬ tains a decisive and fixed conclusion. not merely of the unconstitutionality, but of the impropriety, or injustice in other respects of any measure, if he declares that he approves it he is false to his oath, and he deliberately disregards his Constitutional obligations. That, sir, was democratic doctrine in 1855. There the Executive claimed the right under the Constitution to exercise liis judgment in signing or withholding his signature from a bill, the same as the legislative department of the Government exercise their right to vote for or against a bill. There was no thought then in the democracy, or at least no such idea was suggested by the democracy, that if the President vetoed a bill he thereby, as was said here yesterday, attempted to coerce the legislative department of the Government, so that they would have a right to withhold action afterward on the bill, even to the point of failing to appropriate money to carry on the Government. Substantially this language was uttered yes¬ terday by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wallace.] So, then, I say, taking the theory that has been held by the democratic party and the theory of all parties in reference to an act of coercion of one branch of the Government on another, this claim is entirely unprecedented. Heuce, I say, sir, in the most emphatic terms, that the form and manner of this proposed legislation is utterly repugnant to the pure and severely clean-cut requirements of a legal proposition ; that in construction its design is suspicious and its meaning prevari- cative ; and in actual effect it is c tercive, spoiiative of the rights, functions, and duties of co-ordinate branches of the Government ; it is against the spirit of our Constitution, deceptive, and revolutionary. I sincerely regret, sir, as it seems to me every fair-minded man intent upon promoting justice and holding himself subject to conviction upon the great ques¬ tions involving the welfare of his country must, that this attempted legislation was not put before us in a shape to challenge our sense of right and rest its fate entirely upon its own inherent merits. I should not give it my support, even in a separate bill ; but it would then be without its coercive feature. Let me ask, Mr. President, in all candor and seriousness, why the legislation attempted in this appropriation bill was not put in that separate and well-defined shape ? From a partisan ssand-point, sir, the answer will come quickly. As a partisan measure its friends have not the strength to enact it into a law duly and unexception- ably made. But, sir, such an answer prompts a further inquiry, which demands to know why, if it be a measure just in its purposes and conducive to the best inter¬ ests of the greatest number, resort is had to a method which subjects its projectors to the charge of a Ajar of scrutiny and an indecent haste in its accomplishment? If ic be a party measure, then are its friends justly open to all of the abuse they have charged upon republicans for subordinating the public interests to the behests of party. If it be a measure appealing to the sense of right and manifestly in the interest of the people, then why not make the appeal directly “unto Caesar,” a tribunal in our free country which soon or late rights all wrongs and condemns all evil ? Why do not our democratic friends go directly to the people of this country in the election which is so near at hand, state their case fairly, and expect a certain verdict in their favor ? The logic of their present situation may be stated in these terms, sir ; either they fear to submit their case to the tribunal of the people, and are thus grossly partisan in this measure, or they lack the moral courage of their convictions, which convictions should insure honesty, frankness, and equity, instead of duplicity, double-dealing, and injustice. For my own part, Mr. President, I do not propose to be deceived by the hidden designs of others, or to be misled by an error of judgment of my own. I know, sir, as every unbiased, unpartisan, and reflecting mind must know, the true signifi¬ cation and inevitable result of the measure now pushed upon the attention of this Chamber, plausible to tlie ear, not unpie.sing to the eye ; but with the curtain drawn, like a skeleton garnished with the sweet-smelling flowers of May, it is pre¬ sented. It is my purpose to state my convictions upon this subject during the course of my remarks in a manner which I desire to be respectful but which I am determined shall not be misunderstood. With this in view I ignore every aspect of the question not directly connected with the inherent merits of the proposition. I shall hold my friends of the other side of this Chamber strictly to this treatment of the case. So far as my feeble power lies I will not permit them to evade or escape the issue in which the people I represent and the people of the country at large havte the most vital interest. 0 Now, sir, let us get a clear idea of the ground upon whicli we stand, and with this purpose in view I ask the Secretary to read the section of the statute as it stands aud the words that are to he taken away from it by the proposed amend¬ ment. The Chief Clerk read as follows : No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the United Srates shall order, bring, keep, or have under his authority or con¬ trol. any troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United. States, or to keep the peace at the polls. MR. LOGAN. Now, sir, what is the obvious purport and intention of the section of the statute? Why, sir, to restrict, to prohibit and prevent every species of improper interference in elections by the civil, military, or naval powers of the General Government. In this respect the language of the section is as sweeping as the most exacting requirements could well demand. As a general mandate it is wholly conclusive. It is both declaratory and executive of the principle of abso¬ lute non-interference in elections. The most radical demand could ask for noth¬ ing more ; and let me here remark, by way of parenthesis, that this section was prepared by a democratic Senator and fully concurred in and passed by a Re¬ publican administration which had the power to reject it at once bad they been at all opposed to the principle it represents. Then, sir, in general terms it confessedly comports with every just idea of republican usage and safety. It declaics a principle as to the correct:..ess of which we are all in harmony. But the positive prohibition of the section is modified by the clear statement of two exceptions to its otherwise universal application. The first ofthese exceplions clearly implies the right of any military, naval, or civil officer, acting under proper authority of the United States, to order, bring, keep, or have under his authority armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State where it may be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States. There has been a time when there were armed enemies of the United States. That time has passed, thank God. But at this time, sir, when there are no “ armed enemies ” of the United States to he repelled, we are all in accord upon the propriety of this exception. What time may develop in the great march of human events, through which it may be deemed necessary by the opponents of the Republican party to apply a gag by which the repeal of this ex¬ ception may be forced, like a dose of bad medicine, down the throats of loy T al men, I cannot say. We are dealing with the present, aud, to a certain extent, we must let the future take care of itself. The second ofthese exceptions, sir, just as clearly implies the ight of any military or naval officer, or other persou engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, under authority of the United States, to order, bring, keep, or have under his authority or control troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State, when it may be necessary to keep the peace at the polls. The time was, sir, when this exception received the votes of many of the party who are now clamoring for its repeal; the time may come when the other exception will be equally obnoxious to the p.irty whose interests are so seriously hampered by the exception we are now considering. The proposition now is, however, to strike from the section the last eight words covering the last^of the tw r o exceptions, so that it shall he shorn of the per¬ mission for any person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, either officer of the Army or Navy, United States marshal or his deputies, or any other person in the employ of the Government, to use troops, armed or unarmed, or citizens armed, at any election place for the purpose of keeping the peace at the polls. Now, sir, let us analyze these words a little. What is the permission herein given? It is not even constructively to permit these persons named in the service of the United States to do anything hut one at the polls where a general or speeial election is being held ? Certainly not. What, then, is that one thing permitted ^ them to do? Why simply to keep the peace. Have they a constructive or implied right to scrutinize ballots ; to decide the question of -who shall vote and who shall not; to coerce this voter and encourage that ; to intimidate one class and assist another ; manifestly not, sir ; their simple prerogative is to keep the peace, by which is meant to prevent disorder, violence, and intimidation upon the part of others. 6 Should they exceed this plain duty they are amenable to all the penalties which such officers incur in the infraction of any rule or law for their government or gui¬ dance ; their permission to act in exception of the general spirit and letter of the enactment is as rigid in construction as the law which awarded the greedy Shylock his pound of flesh, but terrified him by the injunction against taking one single drop of human blood. No other construction can be given to this law. Now, sir, who objects to the maintenance of the peace at the polls? Is it the honest voter ? Certainly not. Who then ? Is it the dishonest man who would falsely vote? Can it be the ballot-box stuffier, the repeater, the white-leaguer, the rifle-clubs, the men who go gunning for negroes to prevent their voting ? If not, who then ? * Why, Mr. President, is it possible that in a country like this the power exists to suppress violence, mobs, and outrages at any place, at any time, except on the day of a national election at the polls where citizens are wont to exercise one of their most sacred constitutional rights? These democrats say that they are in favor of peace and order, that they are op¬ posed to violence, opposed to mobs, opposed to murder. When? On every day in the year except on the day of the election ! That is the meaning of this amend¬ ment ; keep the peace at all times, in all places, except on the day of election ; and then no officer, civil, military or naval, has a right to suppress a mob or pro¬ tect the citizen in the exercise of his constitutional rights. That is what you mean, and that is what you propose. Is it possible that the Representatives here who are clamoring for the repeal of this most wholesome provision are the persons having an interest for their con¬ stituents against keeping the peace at the polls? This must be so ; their constitu¬ ents must be the men who desire to break the peace, and further to break it in their own interest, as they would not be likely to break it in the interest of any one else. But the claim is made, sir. that the mere presence of civil or military power at a voting place is in itself intimidating to voters, and therefore destructive of the lib¬ erties of freemen. This cannot be the case. Who was ever intimidated and prevented from do¬ ing an honest and proper act by an officer or other person merely standing by to protect him in doing that honest and proper act? No one, sir. \Yho is it sir, on being abroad in our large cities in the night, that considers the policeman who stands on the street corners to keep the peace of the citizens to be a menace, a ter¬ ror, an intimidation to the free citizen? Is it the honest man who wishes the law obeyed and enforced, or is it the murderer, the thief, the outlaw, who seeksjx) prey upon the lives and property of the peaceful, the innocent, and law-abiding part of community ? Sir, I say let the murderers and outlaws answer this question. But, sir, to show how shallow is this pretext that this repeal is to prevent in¬ timidation by the military, let me read a law now on the statute-books, passed June 18, 1878, only by the last Congress, prohibiting the use of the military even as a posse comitatus. You will find, approved June 18, 1878, the following section of a statute: Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ.any part of the Army of the United States as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employ¬ ment of said force may he expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section ; and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. We find that law standing upon the statute-book, and the Senator from Penn¬ sylvania said yesterday that as far as the effect of this provision which they are now attempting to repeal is concerned, the law already enacted was sufficient to protect against any attempt on the part of any one to use the military as a posse at the polls. Therefore he argued that it was a mere pretext on our part that we were op¬ posed to the repeal of the law now in question. This was the argument. Now let me see what his argument proves. There is already a law protecting the people against the military being used as a posse comitatus. They have a law already passed last June protecting them against the military, and severe penalties imposed for the violation of the law. Why, then, if that be tlip case, do you attempt to repeal these eight words of this statute? What is the object? It only uncovers the de- 7 sign of this movement, and that is to strike at the civil authority, to prevent the United States Government being present at all in any capacity, either civil, military, or naval, at the polls on election day. That is all. It is to takeaway from the Gov¬ ernment the right to be present, to show itself (whether its power be exercised or not) at the time you are electing a national officer who is to provide for the life and safety of the nation. That is the object of these gentlemen. But, sir, their pretense is not real. To a man bent upon doing right, it does seem to me that the presence of persons armed in authority, either civil or military, would not be very dangerous; but it is not the military, it is the civil that these gen¬ tlemen desire to deprive of the right of being at the polls to preserve the peace and protect the rights of American citizens. The power of being present when I at¬ tempt to exercise a constitutional right, which is there for the purpose of protect¬ ing me in my right, to preserve the peace, to keep a murderer from shooting me down, to prevent the mob from capturing and carrying me off, depriving me of the right to vote—the idea that that course is intimidating to me who honestly desire to exercise my right, is absolutely farcical. Why. sir, honest men have no fear of the law which punishes dishonesty. Criminal laws have no terror for those avoid¬ ing criminal things, and never were truer words set to the jiugle of poetry than those which declare— “ No man e’er felt the halter draw, With good opinion of the law.” Hence I affirm, without fear of successful contradiction, that the authority given hy the section to the Government through its own officials to keep the peace at the polls is in the interest of order, fairness, and good government. But, sir, our dem¬ ocratic friends make violent objection to this provision upon another score, involv¬ ing a principle upon which they believe theirs to be built. From that standpoint, they view with a horror bordering closely on insanity, the attempt of the General Govern¬ ment to interfere, even to keep the peace within the bounds o f a State. Well, now, Mr. President, just within the narrow confines of this small claim, lies the whole struct¬ ure, with its animating principle, of the democratic party. It is a thing designated in the infancy of that fossiliferous party as “ State sovereignty,” and through vary¬ ing periods of its active life, by vailing names, adopted to its varying claims. Dur¬ ing the period of struggle between the slave-owners and the free State men for the control of the Territories, it was “squatter sovereignty,” and in tlieir later days the sovereign has disappeared, and “home rule” usurps his place. I shall have some¬ thing more to say on this point before I finally conclude ; and I pass on now to re¬ mark the utter perniciousness of this State-rights assumption as applicable to the point under discussion. I assume, sir, that this Government is either a nation per se, or it is a simple voluntary aggregation of States with a sovereign autonomy, each entirely competent to exercise its sovereignty by a withdrawal from the feder¬ ation whenever it desires. It cannot have the aspect of both a sovereign nation and a collection of sovereign States. A paradox of insurmountable character is in¬ volved in the very idea of such a thing. But, however we may argue upon this matter, the strong arm of the American people, with gun and sword in hand, have settled the principle that the American Union is a national sovereign, and supreme. Then, sir, being a nation, I need scarcely remind the learned Senators upon this floor of the universally accepted maxim that a nation is justly entitled to every pre¬ rogative and function not trenching upon the rights of other nations, which may be necessary to the preservation of its national character and its national integrity. To so large an extent is this an admitted principle, that the nations of Europe con¬ stantly go beyond tlieir own limits and into the affairs and boundaries of other na¬ tions in order to preserve what they have called “ the balance of power.” In other words, so mindful are they of their own interests and the dangers besetting their national integrity, that they wait for no “ overt act” when a speck of threatening appears upon the horizon, but proceed at once to form such counter movements as shall render the rise of a power dangerous to the integrity of others as nearly out of the question as possible. But descending from a nation to that of individuals, let me call to the minds of Senators a well-established and familiar principle of law; that is, that the convey¬ ance of any right carries with it the reasonable means of enjoying that right. So tho lease or purchase of premises carries with it the right to enjoy their occupancy This is merely adduced to illustrate the principle that when a right is given o 8 granted, it carries with it the right of enjoyment of the same. Sir, wherever a light is granted or guaranteed by the Constitution, the Government must have the power to enforce it and protect the citizen in the exercise of it. So the fugitive slave-law was enforced by the use of both military and civil au- thori'y in States where slavery did not exist, upon the democratic doctrine then that it was a right recognized by the Constitution, and therefore must be enforced by the power of the Government. But to return, sir: If a nation possesses these indisputable rights to preserve : -ts own integrity just touched upon, including the right to go outside of its own lim¬ its and interfere with the affairs of neighboring and even remote nations, will it be claimed that a Government like our own, whose life is vested in representation from its many constituent parts, is powerless to protect itself from the irruption of enemies perhaps, or at the least from persons who may have done violence to a fair election for a national legislature, and in representing a minority of the people, de¬ stroy the essential idea of our institutions—the idea which declares that a majority -hall rule ? So plain and unavoidable is this principle, sir, that refuge is taken be¬ hind the clause of the Constitution which makes each House the judge of the quali¬ fications of its o * n members. In the face of partisan majorities and the latter-day methods of conducting elections in the South, we know the scope of this provision too well to regard it in any serious light as a protection against fraud or a guaran¬ tee of a fair representation of the majority of the people. But let us carry the principle further than the election for members of the national House of Represent¬ atives. Let us consider for a moment what may be termed the local officers of a State and their relations to the General Government, without any wish on my part f< r the Government to interfere in purely local matters. From the governor to the most unimportant officer bearings are had in some channel upon the interests of the nation at large and upon the interests of sister States. It is not necessary that I should trace them here, Mr. President, but I may be permitted to call attention to the important interests the country has in a fair election of members of a State legislative body which possesses the function of choosmg a person to represent the State in this body. I need only to suggest the .dea of its importance to the gentleman whom I am addressing ; the principle has no need of elaboration. Is it not plain, then, that the Government, as a govern¬ ment, possesses the powder, whenever the necessity arises, to suppress violence within the limits of any State when it is manifestly necessary to insure its own preserva¬ tion ? or shall it be concluded that a great nation is entirely at the mercy of theca- price or wickedness of a mere handful of its own citizens, and that it must sit pas¬ sively down and witness the efforts which must topple it over to the ground ? Now, sir, we have all learned to regard consistency as a jewel, for it implies conviction in certain ideas, and honesty in seeking to disseminate them. Have our democratic friends been consistent in their extreme demands concerning the rights of States? I wish, sir, I oould say they had been. But the fugitive-slave act before alluded to, with the revolting proceedings under it, stands as a living testimonial against their justice and against the consistency of their professions. Ah, sir, for the poor hound- iiuuted fugitive seeking escape from his bondage, our hearts must ever bleed ; but we may, iu view of the happy issue of his sufferings, whereby he has been brought from slavery to the full estate of man, forget those sufferings, or remember them only as a sad means to a happy end. But in the party who have so tenaciously held to a principle which they persistently violate whenever their own party designs are involved, we can have no abiding confidence as to its safety or its justice. It is not so many years ago, sir, but that we can all remember now the circumstances of the proclamation of President Fillmore for the capture of a poor fugitive slave. I ask the Secretary to read that proclamation of February 18, 1851, from the book which I send to the desk. The Chief Clerk read as follows : , * A proclamation by the President of tlie United States. Whereas information has heen received that sundry lawless persons, principally per¬ sons of color, combined and confederated together for the purpose of opposing by force the execution ol the laws of the United States, did, at Boston, in Massachusetts, on the 15th of this month, make a violent assault on the marshal or deputy marshals of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, iu the court-house, and did overcome the said officers, and did, by force, l'oscue from their custody a person arrestedas a fugitive slave, and then and there a prisoner lawfully liolden by the said marshal or deputy mar¬ shals of the United States, and other scandalous outrages did commit, in violation of law : 9 Now, therefore, to the end that the authority of the laws may he maintained, and those concerned in violating them brought to immediate and condign punishment, I have issued this my jjroclamation, calling on all well-disposed citizens to rally to the sup¬ port of the laws of their country, and requiring and commanding all officers, civil and military, and all other persons,civil or military, who shall be found within the vicinity of this outrage, to be aiding and assisting, by all means in their power, in quelling this and other such combinations, and assisting the marshal and his deputies in recapturing the above-mentioned prisoner; and I do especially direct that prosecutions be commenced against all persons who shall have made themselves aiders or abettors in or to this flagi¬ tious offense ; and I do further command that the district attorney of the United States and all other persons concerned in the administration or execution of the laws of the United States, cause the foregoing offenders, and all such as aided, abet ted, or assisted them, or shall be found to have harbored or concealed such fugitive contrary to law, to be,immediately arrested ana proceeded with according to law. Given under my hand and the seal of the United States this 18tli day of Febru¬ ary, 18ol. [h. S.] MILLARD FILLMORE. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary of State. Mr. LOGAN. Mr. President, I have had that read for the purpose of showing that during ihe administration of Mr. Fillmore the authority was exercised by the President of the United States, without being called on by governor or State Legis¬ lature, of using the military, the civil, and the naval power of the Government for the purpose of pursuing and capturing a fugitive slave in a State where slavery did not exist. So we all remember, too, the arrest of a poor fugitive slave from Virginia named Burns, who also escaped to Boston, and the event was regarded of such im¬ portance that President Pierce ordered the use of the Army, the Navy, and the civil authorities to secure his return to Virginia. President Pierce, in May, 1854, did not only deem that he had the authority to use the military and naval power of the Government in protecting the peace of the citizens, as it was called, but in arresting, capturing, and returning a fugitive slave. He issued an order which was sent to the military officer commanding in New York; he issued his orders to those in command of the marines in Boston; he issued his orders to the marshal and all civil authorities, and instructed and called upon them to arrest, capture, and return a fugitive slave from his protectors. Why, sir, when we go back and reflect on this, I onty beg my fellow-Senators to contemplate this act for a moment: a tired, bleeding human being, escaped from bondage, hunted with the keen-fanged bloodhound until he found his way to a com¬ munity of fellow-creatures who had all the heart and all the humanity to give him comfort and protection, is violently seized within the limits of another State, and by the naval forces of the United States, through order of the President, is torn from his protectors and returned to his bondage in the State of Virginia At that moment what became of the much-vaunted sacredness of State lines and authority by this use of the military and paval power in the execution of civil process, not in putting down mobs or protecting persons against violence ? What became of the princi¬ ple of the nation having no right to interfere with State affairs? How was it, that troops could enter a State without a call by the governor or Legislature being made on the President under the fourth article of the Constitution? Upon what theory? Upon the theory that that right w r as recognized in the Constitution, and hence the right should be enforced and protected by all the power of the General Govern¬ ment. • This was your theory and doctrine when you wished to enslave a human being. So, too, with the rights guaranteed to a man as a citizen of the United States. The right to vote being recognized, he has the right to the free exercise of all the privileges guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and shall we not say that in national elections the citizen shall be protected against mobs, against mur¬ der, against violence, and shall be permitted to cast his ballot peaceably and quietly for representatives in the National Government. It rests on the same principle, and it lias more authority under the Constitution than the recognition of slavery had. But, sir, is it not strange that dogs must be called, navies must unfurl their sheets to the breeze, the deep thunder tones of artillery must be heard on the flank of a poor bleeding wretch in order to capture him and put him in bondage; but when the poor wretch stands up before his brothers as a man with rights under the Con¬ stitution given to him, and the right to vote at an election, and he says to that same Government, “You once pursued me and returned me to a master, and now you have given me rights as a citizen; now I am made free as you are; you promised me protection; I now appeal to you for it;” I ask in the name of conscience, in the name t 10 of justice, in the presence of humanity, wliat there is in that principle that will follow and starve and persecute a man in slavery that will not protect him when he is a freeman? I ask some one to tell me where the principle is of justice, of right, of humanity that will permit us, when this man asks us now to protect him in casting his ballot, to say to him, “No; we hunted you when you were a slave; we will stand by and. see you murdered now and shot down in cold blood; we have clothed you with the rights of an American citizen, and we feel that we have no power to pro¬ tect you.” My God, what a government that is ! But, sir, let us glance for a moment at the effects of amending the section by striking out the words as proposed. To take away the second exception authorizing the civil, military, and other officers of the Government to keep the peace at the polls would result in depriving the Government of those self-protecting means which I thiuk I have fairly shown every nation is fully justified in using. But under the sweeping terms of the amended law, no mob violence at the polls, no outrageous in¬ timidation of law-abiding citizens by armed ruffians could be interferred with by an officer under commission of the Government, whose life perhaps was tremblingly awaiting the issue. No United States marshal and no other civil officer could law¬ fully interpose his official authority against the wildest violence and fraud which might; sway an unscrupulous mob. “Oh,” say our democratic friends, “leave that all to the State authorities, they will provide against all that.” But, sir, have they done it ? If they have, do they enforce the law ? But, sir, I hold that the matter affecting the national interest should be pro¬ vided for by the national authorities, and that trusts so important should not be per¬ mitted for a moment to rest solely wuth the States. But in addition to this consid¬ eration there is the alreadv demonstrated fact that the State authorities, sometimes being in the same interest as the men who commit the violence, will interpose no means to prevent it or to bring the culprits afterward to justice. Where, then, is protection to come from if not from the Government? If that be true, then I ask you to tell me where is the protection ? Where w r ill it come from ? If the States fail to do it, if the State Legislatures fail to provide, if the State courts fail to decide in his favor, where then must the protection come from, and where must the citizen turn his eyes to seek it if not to the General Government ? Now, Mr. President, if this statement were denied by our democratic friends, in order to prove the truthfulness we should be compelled to recite all the terrible mimes which have been perpetrated against the elective franchise in the Southern States of our country. I do not propose doing that, sir, at this time. But I have some very significant figures to adduce, and some questions to ask which may trouble our democratic friends to answer satisfactorily. I wish to premise the showing of figures which I propose making by the open statement that the southern white people, as a mass, have never to this moment ac¬ cepted the decisions of the war. They have never accepted the principles of a fair and tolerant election, even among the whites themselves, while as to the colored man the amendments to the Constitution securing him citizenship, with equal rights before the law, are silently regarded as things to be necessarily tolerated, but only to the time when the southern democracy shall “capture the Capitol” and laugh the “nigger amendments,” as they call them,to scorn. I say, sir. with all the ear¬ nestness of a man speaking in sorrow 7 and not in anger, that, practically, freedom of elections in many of the Southern States of x4merica is a dead letter this very day, and, so far as the amendment now under consideration may have application to those, it is a matter of no concern whatever with the democracy whether it be passed or not. This statement may surprise some of my friends, sir, but I propose show¬ ing ere long wliat the real purpose of this amendment is. But I reiterate the assertion that there is not such a thing as fair elections in the majority of the Southern States; that if there were any such elections a number of those States would be largely republican in majority, and that in consequence both branches of the present Congress would have a large Republican majority. These facts are indisputable. The colored man has been cheated of his citizenship, robbed of his franchise, and the republican party, through its magnanimity to a people who have shown by their acts how little they deserve it, have been shorn of the power to continue peacefully their work of reconstruction upon the ideal hope of the Repub¬ lic. I speak strongly, sir, but my words are susceptible of “confirmation strong as * proof of Holy Writ.” - Startling as the information may be to the northern people, it is neverthless true, 11 sir, that this country is to-day governed by the South. Let us realize the full force of the fact. According to a volume recently published by Mr. A. R. Spofford, the Librarian of Congress, sixteen Southern States kad a total white and colored popu¬ lation in 1870 of 13,628,205 souls, while the then twenty-one Northern States had a population of 24,487,486 souls, being almost double that of the Southern States. According to the same authority, sixteen Southern States showed an aggregate of internal revenue receipts for the year last past of $26,338,413, while twenty-one Northern States for the same year showed an aggregate of receipts from the same sources of $78,378,907, or more than three times the amount from the Southern States. The footings of these amounts have been hastily made by myself, and while they may not be accurate to a unit, they do not vary far from exactness, the one State admitted since not included. But let us look a little further, sir. I find that the present Congress contains one hundred and ninety-two democratic members, and of this number one hundred and twenty-nine are from the South and only sixty-three from the North, being more than double the number of members from the South than from the North. Very well, sir. Now, I need not call to the minds of the Senators present the fact which I desire the people of the North to be fully acquainted with, which is that the dem¬ ocratic members of the Forty-sixth Congress are governed in all items of essential legislation by a majority vote of the democratic caucus. Now, the Southern States having one hundred and tweutj^-nine members in that caucus and the Northern States having sixty-three members in the caucus, is it not easy to see that all democratic legislation is made in the interests of the Southern States, and that a section of country which in 1870 had a population of less than fourteen millions, whose revenue receipts were less than $27,000,000, or about $2 per capita on the basis of the census of 1870, rules completely, absolutely rules, sir. a section of country with a population of nearly twenty-five millions and whose revenue receipts were nearly $79,000,000, or over $3 per capita. Now, Mr. President, this uuvarnished statement appears sufficiently alarming, but it is my stern duty to carry the conclusion to its utmost limit. I ask my friends to go down the list of these one hundred and twenty-nine southerp democratic members of the Forty-sixth Congress and note the number who only fifteen years ago "were arrayed with the hosts of rebellion, and endeavoring to destroy by every means in their power a Government which has done the most unparalleled act on record in the history of nations, that of subduing the men who attempted its destruction, wresting their swords from their hands, and then almost with tears in their eyes inviting them back to make laws for their conquerors. With these facts before our eyes, sir. am I not justified in the declaration that the men who, in the sight of God, had their hands at the throat of their country, have their feet at this moment upon the necks of those who gave up their relatives, spent their own blood, and poured out their own treasure in its defense. I stand here, sir, as the repre¬ sentative of a State, and of a section of our country, which stood gallantly among the foremost in the great work of preserving our imperiled country, and I will speak the truth fearlessly though the very heavens fall. But, Mr. President, I have made the statement that there is absolutely no such thing in the majority of the Southern States proper as a fair and impartial election. As a proof of this it is not my purpose, as I said before, to go into those details of individual outrages which are unfortunately too well attested ; but I wish to present some facts and figures which, to the thoughtful mind, will speak far more eloquent¬ ly than words, and which will serve to show the military terrorist!* by the United States authorities of which our Southern democratic friends complain. Not only shall we learn this from a review of the figures, but we shall also behold how cer¬ tainly those people have nullified the citizenship of the colored man, and rendered the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution the merest farces which have ever been enacted. In the year 1868 General Grant received a total of 214 electoral votes for Presi¬ dent of the United States. Of these 214 votes 9 were from North Carolina, 10 from Tennessee, 8 from Alabama, 5 from Arkansas, and 3 from Florida, making a total of 40 electoral votes from the seceding States. At the election of 1872 General Grant received 286 votes for President, 11 of which were from Virginia, 10 from North Carolina, 9 from South Carolina, 8 from Mississippi, 10 from Alabama, and 4 from Florida, being a total of 50 electoral votes from the seceding States. Now mark the contrast, sir. In 1876 the Republican candidate for President, General 12 Hayes, only received from the States just enumerated 4 votes from Florida and 7 votes from South Carolina. What became of the majorities which cast the votes of those States for General Grant, when there was no claim made of illegal voting and intimidation at that time? What became of the votes of the colored men in Mississippi and South Carolina who largely outnumbered the whites, according to the census of 1870, and who were almost to a man Republican in politics? I ask any candid man to weigh these incontrovertible facts and then decide as to whether they have fair elections in the South. But still further, sir, it is a matter of statistics, accessible to any inquirer, that whole districts of the Southern States are prepouderatingly composed of colored men. Nay, in many districts the colored people outnumber the white as two or three to one. These colored people understand full well that it was the republican party that brought them out of slavery, and unrestrained and untrammeled in their right of suffrage they are solidly republican. Now, sir, where are the representa¬ tives in Congress of these immense republican majorities? Mr. Bruce, the re¬ spected Senator from Mississippi, stands alone upon this floor as the last represent¬ ative of four million people, who, through trials and bloodshed, were brought to a view of the promised land only to be sunk into the depths of renewed despair. I ask these Southern gentlemen to whom has been committed a sacred trust a ques¬ tion which has been asked wdfck fearful import once before in the history of the human race, ‘‘Cain, what hast thou done with thy brother?” But three.republi¬ can districts of the South and but four republicans sit in both branches of Con¬ gress beside one hundred and twenty-nine democrats to light up the tableau repre¬ senting a “solid South.Now, Mr. President, I know very well the answer which will be made to these inquiries so plainly put. When I ask these democratic gen¬ tlemen where the representatives of colored constituencies are, they immediately retort by asking why the republicans of the North send no colored representatives to the Halls of Congress? Such a reply is not worthy of serious men, and ignores the fact, explain it as w T e will, that the human race follows the promptings of con¬ sanguinity ; and all experience shows that classes are formed in all communities, and thus the Irish community is pretty certain to be represented by one of their own blood, the German community by a German, an American community almost as certain by an Americau, and the colored community would be just as certain to be represented by a colored man ; but it is characteristic of the great republican party that they give all classes of their constituency a fair representation in the administration of the public affairs of our country. Now, sir, when they ask me why we do not send colored men to Congress from the North, or when they say the colored men as a class vote the democratic ticket, and tliar is the reason why their majorities are so large, it seems very amusing. I will ask the question of my democratic friends, did any person ever see a colored Democrat holding office ? He would be a vara avis indeed. Upon a basis of numbers, sir, and of well-known facts concerning the political sentiments of the colored people, we should see here to-day in the Forty-sixth Con¬ gress unbroken republican delegations from the States of South Carolina and Mis¬ sissippi, and a preponderating republican vote from the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida, lieasoning from all established laws pertaining to political majorities, coupled with well-ascertained data, which speak more eloquently than even statistics and figures, the political complexion of the congressional represent¬ atives from the seceding States should be changed so as to show twenty more re¬ publican members than now appears, and a corresponding less number of demo¬ cratic members. The details of these changes might be enumerated almost to a certainty. This would give the republicans 148 votes in the House, omitting any calculation as to California, which is yet to vote, and therefore that party would have a majority in the House, which there can be no earthly doubt it is fairly and legitimately entitled to. By a process of reasoning as nearly approaching certainty as anything can well be not absolutely demonstrated, the States of South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, are entitled to six additional republicans on the floor of the Senate. These would be constituted of two Senators from each of those States, with the exception of Louisiana and Mississippi, which already have one republican each. This change in the political personnel of the Senate would give the republicans majority iu this body. Now, Mr. President, there can be no man who, liavin knowledge of the true situation of affairs in the South, but will say that upon e: era v 13 free election throughout the South, an election conducted without the democratic adjuncts of “rifle clubs,” “red shirts,” “white-leaguers,” ku-klux, et id genus omne , the results in favor of the Republicans would be in excess of what I have just stated them. But let us look a little further, sir, in order that we may be enabled to form a better idea of what is meant by a “ free ballot ” in the Southern States. In the year 1876 Governor Chamberiain, of South Carolina, received as the republican candidate for governor of that State a fair and honest majority over General Hamp¬ ton, democratic candidate, of 3,433 votes. Fairly elected, as we all know, he nevertheless did not receive the office. But now mark, sir. at the last election in that State Governor Hampton, the democratic candidate for governor, is represent¬ ed as having received a total of 119,550 votes. At this election there were recorded how many epub lican votes? Not one. How many in opposition ? Two hundred and thirteen are marked on the list as “scattering” in opposition to Governor Hamptoh. Two hundred and thirteen votes, Mr. President, to represent the total strength of the republicans in a State where, if they have a single solitary vote at all, they have a fair majority over all voters. But now, sir, consider still another fact. This result occurred at the State election, Vhere the United States laws were not enforced in 1878. Sir, at the presidential election in 1876, which was conducted under the provisions of this section and others relating to elections our democratic friends are so anxious to repeal because of the oppressiveness and terrorism. Gen¬ eral Hayes, the Republican candidate for President, received a total of 91,788 votes, and Governor Tilden, the democratic candidate, received 99,896. These figures show conclusively that, at the gubernatorial election since, the republicans under the free ballot system of the South were cheated out of over 90,000 votes. The Legislature of that State is composed of one hundred and fifty democrats and only eight republicans. This was done by the same sort of fraud which elected the democratic governor and which 1ms cheated the republicans of their just representa¬ tion upon this floor. From the State of Georgia, which at the last presidential election gave General Hayes 50,446 votes, not a single member of Congress is re¬ turned, and there are but four republicans in the State Legislature. In Arkansas, where General Hayes received 38,699 votes out of a total vote of 83,730. the repub¬ licans have but seven members in the Legislature and not a single representation on the floor of Congress. In Alabama General Hayes received for President, in the year 1876, 66,230 votes, but at the gubernatorial election of two years later, not a single republican vote was cast. In two short years, 66,230 republican voters had their voices stifled or had been removed, let us hope, to a better land through the courteous assistance of the rifle-clubs. In 1888, this State gave General Grant 5,000, and in 1872, 15,090 majority. In Mississippi General Grant received 82,175 votes : Greeley, 47,288—a majority of 35,0 0 votes in 1872 in favor of the republicans. Four years later, this immense vote had shrunk to 52,605, which was given for General Hayes. But now let us note a curious circumstance in this connection. The State also gave for Tildeu, the democratic candidate, 112,173 votes, returning his majority as 49,568 votes. The total vote of the State in 1876 was 164,778, being a total increase in four years of 35,315. This, upon the basis of five persons to each voter, would represent an in¬ crease of the population of Mississippi, in the short period named, of 176,575 souls, and this, too, in a State which is known to have decreased in population. At the gubernatorial election of 1877, Governor Stone received a total of 96,382 votes, while the republican vote, under the head of “scattering,” was recorded as 1,168, a shrinkage, in one year from the presidential election, of over 50,000 votes. This result may be claimed by our democratic friends, however, as a testimonial of recog¬ nition of the eminent services rendered by Governor Stone in the arrangement of the Kemper County unpleasantness, as well as an expression of the indignation of our democratic friends over the Chisholm massacre. In the State of Louisiana, the census of 1870 shows a preponderance of colored people over the whites of more than 2,000. The registration of voters in this State under the reconstruction acts showed 83,065 colored voters and 44,670 white voters. The “fusion” registration of 1872 showed the colored vote to be 90,047, and the white vote 88,179. The registration of 1876 gave the colored vote as 115,268 and the white vote as 88.179. Now, sir, under this plain preponderance of the colored vote over the white in Louisiana, not one colored man represents that State upon 14 the floors of Congress, and but one white republican to represent a republican con¬ stituency, and, sir, by the democratic count, General Hayes received for President in 1876 77,154, which was reduced by the electoral commission to 75,185. I will not multiply these citations, Mr. President, though I could do so to a much greater extent. What is the plain lesson to be drawn from them ? Why, manifestly this : Upon every occasion where the republican voters of t