DUTY OF CONGRESS.

SPEECH

OF

HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD,

OF OHIO,

IN THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March 17 1880.

WASHINGTON.

SPEECH

OF

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 printing and binding, the sum of $100,000 was contributed by the Public Printer for political purposes, mainly to carry the democratic elections in Pennsylvania; and that vast contribution did not exhaust the profits of the Public Printer out of the Government. This exposure destroyed the wretched contract system; and thereafter the Government itself assumed the responsibility of the work. At first the Senate or the House of Representatives elected a Printer, as they had a manifest 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 that 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-thirds 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; republicans taking their share of responsibility for their own blunders and mistakes; all agreeing that the law ought to conform to the Constitution.

When the democratic party came into power in 1876, they amended that law by making it take effect immediately. We had made it take effect when a vacancy should occur in the office of Public Printer. In 1876 the law was so changed as to make it take effect immediately. And that passed by the general consent of both parties. The proposition 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 be in the direction of economy; but merely abolishes a constitutional office and creates an unconstitutional one; takes the appointing power out of the hands 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 discussing it.

THE ELECTION LAWS.

I will now call attention, during the short time left me, to what I consider a matter of far graver moment. My colleague, [Mr. MCMAHON,] in his speech opening the discussion upon this bill, made the announcement 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 in this bill, and 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 that because the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the election law is constitutional by a sort of eight-by-seven decisionand I mean by that a division apparently according to party lines, (without impugning the good faith of any member of the Supreme Court, but to show how differently a legal question may appear to persons who have been educated in different 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, and 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 number 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 EVERY 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 engraven upon the minds and hearts of all the people of this country. And this is its substance:

That a law of Congress interpenetrates and becomes a part of every 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, under 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