do, I will gladly give away any party advantage for the sake of strengthening the foundations of law and good order. And I therefore 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 upon this bill as will put an end to this miserable business, and cast out of these halls the dregs of that unfortunate and crazy extra session.

THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL DEPUTY

MARSHALS.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MARCH 19 AND APRIL 23, 1880.

In the State of California expenses amounting to $7,600 were incurred, in the election of 1879, in the appointment of special deputy marshals. Further, one point in the Congressional controversy about the special deputy marshals of elections was the manner of their appointment. March 18, 1880, Mr. Garfield offered the following as a substitute for a proposition then pending: "For special deputy marshals of elections, the sum of $7,600: Provided, that hereafter special deputy marshals of elections, for performing any duties in reference to any election, shall receive the sum of $5 per day in full for their compensation; and that all appointments of such special deputy marshals having any duties to perform in respect to any election shall be made by the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties, or by the District Judge of the district in the absence of the Circuit Judge; said special deputies to be appointed in equal numbers from the different political parties." The point here involved was whether these deputies should be appointed by the marshals, as the existing law said, or by the judges, as the amendment proposed. After some verbal modification, and the addition of a provision that the special deputies should be persons of good moral character and well-known residents of the voting precinct, the amendment was added, by the Democratic majority, to the Deficiency Bill as a rider. President Hayes vetoed the bill, May 4, mainly upon the ground that "riders" should not be put upon the appropriation bills. So, on May 31, this clause was added to the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill: "For payment of Marshals and their general deputies, except for services of the latter rendered at elections, $650,000." The $7,600 due to the Marshals of California for services rendered at the election of 1879 has never been voted. Mr. Garfield was willing to vote for his proposition as an original measure, but refused to vote for it as a rider. He defined his position

in two short speeches, made on March 19 and April 23 respectively. Before giving his remarks, another phase of the contest over the Marshals should be presented, and a remark or two added touching the contest of which this was a part.

The appropriation made on the 31st of May was for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880. On the 14th of May, Mr. Bayard reported to the Senate, from the Committee on the Judiciary, a bill that dealt with the future. This bill, which was entitled "An Act regulating the pay and appointment of Deputy Marshals," as finally passed, provided that from and after its passage the pay of all deputy marshals for services in reference to any election should be $5 for each day of actual service, and no more, and then provided:

"SEC. 2. That all deputy marshals to serve in reference to any elections shall be appointed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which such marshals are to perform their duties in each year, and the judges of the several Circuit Courts of the United States are hereby authorized to open their respective courts at any time for that purpose, and in case the Circuit Courts shall not be open for that purpose at least ten days prior to a registration, if there be one, or if no registration be required, then at least ten days before the election the judges of the District Courts of the United States are hereby respectively authorized to cause their courts to be opened for the purpose of appointing such deputy marshals, who shall be appointed by the said District Courts, and the officers so appointed shall be in equal numbers from the different political parties, and shall be well-known citizens, of good moral character, and actual residents of the voting precincts in which their duties are to be performed, and shall not be candidates for any office at such election, and all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed: Provided, that the marshals of the United States for whom deputies shall be appointed by the courts under this act shall not be liable for any of the acts of such deputies."

This bill President Hayes vetoed, June 15, on the ground that it “failed to adapt its provisions to the existing laws, so as to secure efficient supervision and protection" of the elections. This veto was the end of the party struggle concerning the Marshals. It was the end, also, of the long party struggle over the army and the enforcement of the national election laws, which began soon after the Democratic party gained a majority in the House of Representatives.1 The Democrats now abandoned the contest. Each year the Army Appropriation Bill has provided for the payment and subsistence of 25,000 enlisted men. Nor has the proviso in the Army Bill for the fiscal years 1880 and 1881, whereby money was denied for the payment, subsistence, and transportation of any portion of

1 See the introductory notes to the speeches entitled "The Army and the Public Peace," and "Revolution in Congress," ante, p. 543 and p. 655.

the army of the United States to be used as a police force to keep the peace at the polls within any State, called by Mr. Garfield "only a stump speech," been since renewed. The Sundry Civil Expense Bill for the year 1881 appropriated for "the payment of United States Marshals and their general deputies, except for services of the latter rendered at elections," $650,000. But this exception did not appear in the corresponding bills for the years 1882 and 1883. In both of those bills the appropriation is "for payment of the fees and expenses of United States Marshals and deputies."

Throughout this long and heated struggle, Mr. Garfield was in hearty accord with the Republicans in Congress; but it is proper to say that his proposition to vest the appointment of the Special Deputy Marshals in the Judges rather than in the Marshals, submitted March 18, given above and defended below, was disapproved of by the majority of Republican Representatives, and by all of the Republican Senators save The following are Mr. Garfield's remarks made on March 19.

one.

MR.

R. CHAIRMAN,- We are equals here, each having rights equal to every other, and nobody having any authority to bind any but himself. With that preface, I will speak for myself.

The first object that I try to keep before my mind in legislation is to be right. On this question of the election laws, during the long and heated debates of last summer, in which all sorts of accusations were made by gentlemen on the other side, there was made but one just criticism of the existing law touching elections. There was one charge made by the other side, and in so far as it was true I consider it a just objection to the law. It was that the law had been used, or was capable of being used, to fill election precincts with men of one party whose time might be employed at the public expense for party electioneering purposes. I say in so far as that law can be so used, to that extent it is unjust; and at all times and on all proper occasions I have declared, and I now declare, myself willing to modify the law so that the alleged abuse cannot take place. That I say for myself, and will continue to say it. No other valid objection to this law was, in my judgment, made by anybody during the last session of this Congress, or since.

Now what happened? In the first place, on this side we objected, and do still object, with entire unanimity, to riders on appropriation bills.

MR. TOWNSHEND, of Illinois. Yes; but you said yesterday that you would vote for this as a rider.

I hope the gentleman from Illinois will possess his soul in patience. We did all in our power to prevent any rider; but the rider was ruled in order. What then? I hold it always to be my duty to help make a pending measure, even though obnoxious, as decent and harmless as possible. When that is done in the present case, we can, and doubtless shall, vote against its final adoption because it is a rider. Yesterday, distinctly disclaiming the right to speak for anybody but myself, I offered a substitute for the proposed amendment, providing that the special deputy marshals should have their pay fixed at five dollars a day, should be appointed by the courts equally from the different political parties, so as to prevent the only evil that can be justly complained of. I will vote to substitute that for the pending proposition, if I vote alone on this or on both sides of the house.

But what has been done? Gentlemen on the other side not only did not accept my substitute, but voted it down, and substituted for it a proposition containing these provisions: first, that the compensation of these deputy marshals shall be cut down to two dollars a day; second, that there shall never be more than three of them in any one election precinct; and, third, that they shall not be employed more than three days, even though the registration under the law of the State lasts ten days. Now, what does this mean? It means that under the pretence of enforcing the election laws for scrutinizing and guarding the polls, though there may be a thousand rioters around the polls seeking to break up the election, yet there shall be but three men empowered to keep the peace of the United States against the mob. In other words, the pending amendment proposes to make this law a notice to the mob in advance to come and overwhelm the keepers of the peace, and make violence rather than order reign at our national elections. If this were a part of the best bill in the world, I would not vote for it, because it cuts the vitals out of the law and makes its enforcement an impossibility. But if you will take the naked proposition that I offered, I will vote for it as a substitute, if I vote alone. I will vote for it as a betterment of the pending amendment, though I say again that it is not proper to put it on the appropriation bill, but altogether improper. Yet when an amendment is pending I will vote for its improveI did not offer my substitute as a compromise. On the