Page images
PDF
EPUB

SPEECH

AT MALDEN, OCT. 10, 1892, THE FORCE BILL.

ΜΑ

ANY times during the past few weeks it has been my privilege to represent and to speak for the Commonwealth, and to receive the cordial greeting which loyal citizens ever give to her. But to-night I come here representing a great political party, to plead its cause, and to fight its battle; and your hearty welcome is gratefully received as evidence of your unflinching loyalty to Democracy, your earnest interest in its work and principles, and your firm determination to carry them to victory.

I reciprocate your welcome, and join in your enthusiasm for our party. May I express the earnest hope that that enthusiasm means the triumph of your brilliant candidate for Congress [Dr. William Everett], who, answering the call of duty and of principle, has turned from the rest and peace of a scholar's life to enter the turmoil of political struggle that he might serve the people's interests, the cause of truth and justice. He brings to the contest character, conscience, and convictions, with learning, undaunted courage, and unselfish purpose. His ability, pluck, and vigor carried our party against heaviest odds almost to victory two years ago. Confidently, now, Democracy, honored by his candidacy, expects the further honor of his service as her representative.

I am glad to come to the district represented by Mr. Lodge to discuss to-night a question in which he

and his party have shown the keenest interest until very recently, - a question which is one of the most important issues of the campaign, but of which the Republican party to-day is very shy.

The issue is presented in the bill framed by the notorious Davenport of New York, fathered by Mr. Lodge, and known as the Force Bill. As that bill interferes largely with the control Massachusetts for one hundred years has had over her elections, as it proposes to hand this control over to the National Government, but really means to hand it over to the Republican party, the question is important.

It seems to me a proper place to discuss it in the district of its nominal author and its uncompromising and constant defender, constant until this year; but now he is silent.

We remember that two years ago he claimed that this was the most important issue and measure before the country. Speaking in this very town on October 27, 1890, Mr. Lodge declared: "I am proud of my connection with the bill, and I ask for your votes, not merely for myself or my party, but for the cause in which I am engaged, which is righteous work, more important than the tariff, or the Silver Bill, or anything else before Congress." He declared that the tariff question was settled; and as it had been settled in his way, evidently he was anxious to have elections so controlled by his party through his Force Bill that the tariff could not be disturbed.

Mr. Watterson graphically described the connection between the McKinley Bill and the Lodge Force Bill when he said: "With one the Republican party ties the hands of the Nation, while with the other it skins it."

Mr. Wilson, the Chairman of the Democratic National Convention, rightly declared:

"We are not deceived as to the temper of the Republican party. We are not in doubt as to its principles. Having taxed us for years without excuse and without mercy, it now proposes to disarm us of all powers of resistance.

"Republican success in this campaign, whether we look to the party platform, the party candidates, or the utterances of the party leaders, means that the people are to be stripped of their franchise through force bills, in order that they may be stripped of their subsistence through tariff bills."

I believe that the people are as anxious now as they were two years ago to know the position of Mr. Lodge and his party upon this question.

An examination of his bill shows that it practically gives to Republican Federal officers control of elections, including the registration of voters, conduct of the election, and the count of the vote; and finally provides for Republican canvassing boards to revise the returns and to issue election certificates.

It deals nominally with National elections; but as the State election comes at the same time, its power necessarily covers both. I do not believe that Massachusetts needs or wants this Federal control of her elections. She certainly does not want it in partisan hands for partisan purposes. Let us see how this is accomplished.

First, a chief supervisor is appointed for life, by the judge of the United States Circuit Court. As almost without exception these judges are Republicans, it is altogether likely that the chief supervisors would be of the same party. The chief supervisor then presents to the Circuit Court lists of persons for appointment as subordinate supervisors, and double the number required for the district. From the list so appointed he selects three for each precinct, two of them of the same political party.

A Republican judge appoints a Republican chief supervisor. A Republican chief supervisor prepares lists of subordinates, and then selects two out of three of such subordinates Republicans. The supervisors so chosen are given power to guard, scrutinize, and supervise elections, including naturalization and registration.

In cities of over twenty thousand inhabitants they are to make a house-to-house canvass, on the order of the Republican chief supervisor. Here would begin the Republican campaign, to be conducted by employees paid from the public treasury. Then follow provisions for the control of the conduct of the election, including the challenging of voters, and the count of the vote by a partisan board, provisions, too, which interfere with the secrecy of the ballot, with our Australian ballot law, and are almost certain to lead to a conflict between National and State authority. They are just as certain to give an opportunity for the partisan abuse of power.

[ocr errors]

Then comes the appointment of canvassing boards of three, two of the same political party, and of course of the Republican party. Those boards decide who is elected to Congress; and upon their decision the clerk makes up the roll of the House, without regard to the certificates sent by State officers.

Then provision is made for the trial by partisan juries of all offences against the law. The juries are drawn by three jury commissioners selected by the court, but care is taken not to provide that even one of the commissioners should belong to some party other than the Republican party, or that they should select the juries without regard to politics. This gives an opportunity for just such partisan abuse of power as was practised in the northern district of Florida in

1889 by the Republican United States marshal, who issued the following order:

JACKSONVILLE, FLA., July 5, 1889.

C. C. KIRK, Esq., De Land, Fla.,

SIR, You will at once confer with McBulby and make out a list of fifty or sixty names of true and tried Republicans from your county registration list for jurors of the United States Court, and forward same to H. P. Walter, clerk of the United States Court; and it is necessary to have them at once, as you can see. Please acknowledge

this.

I am, yours truly,

JOHN R. MIZELL,

United States Marshal.

The bill further provides that the United States marshals (Republicans), in conference with the chief supervisor (Republican), shall appoint as many deputy marshals as the chief supervisor thinks necessary to enforce the election laws. Then, if this force is not sufficient for Republican purposes, Federal troops may be placed at the polls. That is what Mr. Lodge anticipated when he said in debate on the bill that he had no objection to the use of soldiers if necessary at every polling precinct of his district.

Another leading Republican from Pennsylvania, Mr. Brosius, said in debate on the bill, June 28, 1890: "When passed, I am for its enforcement North and South, if need be, with firmness and effectiveness." And he added: "Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon, and every dollar of the Nation's wealth are pledged to the enforcement of every one of its provisions."

Senator Frye, in the debate, Dec. 11, 1890, expressed an equal willingness, if necessary, "to put a bayonet

« PreviousContinue »