University of Virginia Library

Coxey In The Senate

American Nonconformist, May 12, 1894

It took the biggest goldbug ( Sherman ) the senate could put up to answer Allen's speech on the "Coxey resolution,"[1] or rather attempt to answer it. Reader, did you ever see a little boy take up a stone to find a lot of bugs taking their noon siesta under it, and who imagines themselves safe from all disturbance, till the boy took up the stone and poked the bugs with a stick, and have you watched the sudden transformation from somnolency to consternation and animation? Well, the boy was Senator Allen[2], the stick was his "Coxey resolution," and the bugs of every description were the senators. The resolution was as follows:

"Whereas, Jacob S. Coxey, a citizen of the state of Ohio; Carl Browne, a citizen of the state of California, and C. C. Jones, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania,[3] and all the citizens of the United States of America, were on the 1st day of May, 1894 on the grounds of the national capitol in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, assaulted by a police force in the service of the United States of America, and arrested and imprisoned while peaceably entering upon said capitol grounds in a quiet and orderly manner to join others then on said grounds by lawful right; therefore be it

"Resolved, that a special committee of five senators shall be appointed by the president of the senate, no more than two of whom shall belong to the same political party, whose duty it shall be to investigate and report, with all convenient speed, to the senate all the facts and circumstances connected with such arrest and imprisonment, with such recommendation in the premises by bill or otherwise as may be necessary to prevent a repetition of such outrages on the rights of American citizens hereafter. Said committee shall have full power to send for persons and papers, summons, swear and examine witnesses, preserve and report all evidence, perform and do all things in the premises such as may be essential to a full complete and thorough investigation of the matter, the expenses of which investigation and report shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the senate."

When Allen rose to speak he asked to modify his resolution by striking out the last two lines.

Harris,[4] of Tennessee , asked if it were his purpose to strike out the preamble.

Allen answered, "it was not." He had waited patiently nearly a week after this outrage had been committed on the capitol grounds expecting that Sherman ,[5] who represented Ohio , the state from which Coxey and most of his followers come, would introduce some kind of a resolution looking toward an investigation. He had supposed, of course, that the scene which took place on the 1st of May, in the presence of 5,000 people, would be promptly investigated by congress on the motion of Sherman on behalf of his constituents, but he had waited in vain, and therefore deemed it his duty, although not a pleasant one, to introduce the purpose of having a thorough and complete investigation of the remarkable and tragic scene.

He had never known of the existence of such a man as Jacob S. Coxey until he heard his name in connection with the commonweal or good roads movement.[6] He had never had any connection with him, directly or indirectly, till last Friday, when he was sent for to be consulted on the matter of his arrest and prosecution

It was a matter of entire indifference to him who this man was or what his station in life, if he was a peaceable and law abiding citizen. All he wanted to know was that fact, and that his mission to the capital was a lawful and peaceable mission and that his rights had been invaded by those in authority here to induce him to move in this matter. Mr. Coxey came here, if the press was to be relied on, for the purpose of exercising the constitutional right of petitioning the senate for the redress of what he regarded as a grievance of himself and millions of American citizens in common with him. That Coxey came here for an honest purpose he did not doubt. He (Allen) had taken occasion to say at least four different times in the senate and twice for publication out of the senate, that with the purpose of Coxey's movement to induce congress to appropriate money for the construction of roads in the different states he did not believe it wise for the government to appropriate money for that purpose. He had to deal with him and the unfortunate and possibly misguided men who accompanied him, simply in the light of American citizens peaceably petitioning congress for redress of their grievances, real or imaginary, and he proposed to show that purpose from the words of this man in an address which the police refused to allow him to read upon the capitol steps, when they laid violent hands upon him and hastened him in a summary manner from the capitol grounds.

Senator Allen then read Coxey's protest which he had not been permitted to deliver, and when he had finished the reading Senator Daniel, of Virginia ,[7] asked him if he were not counsel for Mr. Coxey.

Senator Allen--No sir; I am not.

Senator Daniel--Has not Mr. Coxey legal remedies for any wrong which may have been inflicted upon him? Has he not a remedy in the courts of this District?

Senator Allen said that the senator from Virginia did not comprehend his position. The implication contained in the senator's question that he was counsel for Mr. Coxey was not true. He had never been. The assertions that had been made within the last ten days in the chamber in connection with a similar resolution he had introduced, that he was either Coxey's counsel or in some way in communication with him, were untrue.

He had been called in consultation with Mr. Hudson, representative from Kansas, and Mr. Pence, of Colorado, upon the rights of this man.[8] He did go into the police court to defend his rights, and he wanted to say to the senator from Virginia, whose kindness of heart he recognized, that he made it the rule of his life to go wherever his duty required him to go, regardless of whom it might please or displease. He proposed to argue in the senate as well as in the police court the constitutionality of the act of 1882.[9] That was the full extent of his connection with Mr. Coxey and his cause. The rough hand that had been laid upon Mr. Coxey was laid upon the rights of seventy millions of American citizens. It was not the right of Coxey alone but the right of the American people that he stood and spoke for at this time. The police club aimed at the head of this man and his followers had been aimed at the head of every man in the country who might see proper to raise his voice in defense of his constitutional rights. It was a blow at free speech; at the right of free constitutional assemblage, and it was these rights rather than the humble individual Coxey, for which he pleaded. When Coxey came on the grounds to present his petition to the government for redress of his grievances, real or imaginary, and the capitol or metropolitan police force of the District laid violent hands on him and his followers, who were not violating the fundamental law of the nation, they became the aggressors, and in answer to the Senator from Virginia he would say that Coxey had a right under the laws of this country to maintain an action of trespass for the injuries done to him. Whether under the peculiar circumstances existing in this District Coxey would able to recover or not is entirely another question, upon which I prefer to express no opinion.

There was a singular unanimity between certain republican and democratic senators in the chamber denouncing Mr. Coxey and his followers and everything and everybody connected with the protest that his and their rights should be preserved. Important as the tariff question was, it was a mere atom floating upon the air as compared with the constitutional right of American citizens to peacefully assemble and peacefully speak their minds with reference to the public policy of the nation and to petition any branch of the government for a redress of their grievances.

The scene that had taken place on the first of May was worthy to have taken place in St. Petersburg or in the capitol of any eastern monarchy, but was entirely out of place in an orderly civilized republic like ours.

What did these men do that they deserve punishment and criticism? It may be said that they violated the law. They marched up one of the principal streets of the city and halted outside of the capitol grounds while Coxey and Browne, and possibly Jones came upon the grounds where 5,000 had assembled at the precise moment. They did not come armed; they were not backed or followed by a mob; they were not reinforced by a military or police force. When Mr. Coxey got to the middle east steps he was told in a preemptory manner that he could not even read his petition, and the police force took him bodily and forced him from the grounds of the capitol.

Not only this, but when the man who was with him, Browne, came unarmed and alone with a little banner about three inches long by two inches wide, misguided as he may have been and with a misconception of the work he would be able to accomplish, he was met with a mounted police force who used the baton and was beaten down and carried off the grounds. There was not the slightest resistance on his part. He came upon the grounds unguarded and alone, and he was met with a brutal force that had no jurisdiction whatever on these grounds, and he was beaten with the policeman's club and carried off and locked up in a dungeon in the police court of this city.

Why were American citizens thus treated? What had they done? What had they said? What had they attempted to do in violation of the laws of the country? Nothing. There was no menace, no threat, no attempt of violence on their part.

Senator Allen went on to cite the act of 1882 under which Coxey and Browne were arrested. It is too long to give here. He said that this statute contained the entire authority of the police force to arrest Mr. Coxey or any other man. Now, what was Coxey prosecuted for? When he was arrested the records of the court show that he was arrested for disturbing the public peace; that was the charge made against him; that was the charge upon which the police arrested him.

When the officers who arrested him took him before the court, they understood quite well that he could not be held and successfully prosecuted on that charge and the prosecuting attorney of the District who has prosecuted him and his followers with unbecoming bloodthirstiness, withdrew the charge and substituted another.

Allen here read the information filed against the three men and it said that he carried his little flag or banner and the other that he trod on the grass.

These charges were made and used as a mere substitute or excuse for Coxey's arrest and prosecution; but there was not a senator in the chamber, there was not an intelligent and loyal American from the Atlantic to the Pacific or from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico who did not know full well that the real charge made against this man was his attempt to exercise his constitutional right of peaceably assembling upon the capitol grounds of his nation and petitioning Congress for a redress of his grievances. He had had the temerity to come here with some of his followers, deluded perhaps, into the belief that they could induce congress to do something to relieve the distressed condition of the country, and his arrest on these two trivial charges would not mislead the people as to the real animus of the prosecution.

The officer who put his hands on this man, and the officer who used the policeman's club to strike down one of his followers, gave a savage, wicked and vicious blow to two undoubted constitutional rights of American citizens, and it was done for the purpose of stifling the cries of hunger and distress.

The statute under which the arrest was made was in direct violation of the constitution which vested the legislative power in both houses of congress, but this statute delegated the legislative power to the speaker of the house and vice president. The act was unconstitutional upon another and still more serious ground, and one, that no man, however gifted he might be would be able to successfully contradict. On the 25th of September, 1789, the first amendment to the constitution was adopted. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"The act under consideration is in indirect violation of the last half of this amendment to the constitution. It has been said in this chamber, perhaps more by indirection and by inference than by unmistakable words that the power of congress to prohibit the peaceable assemblage upon the capitol grounds, is an unquestioned and unquestionable police regulation. I deny it."

Senator Allen cited some historical instances concerning the right to petition.

He said that if congress could say that American citizens cannot congregate upon the capitol grounds under proper restrictions to petition the government for a redress of their grievances, then it can with equal propriety say that they shall not congregate in the District of Columbia; and, having territorial jurisdiction of the entire nation, it would have the power to declare that they should not congregate at any place outside, perhaps of Texas or Massachusetts, Florida or Washington, or some other remote point or points, where they could not reach that branch of government they sought to petition.

I feel as if I would be doing Senator Allen an injustice if I did not give the rest of his speech verbatim, so I give it in his own words:

"The right to petition in person, as the English people enjoyed it and as our people enjoyed it until this flagrant violation of their constitutional rights, carries with it by irresistible implication the right to go to the seat of government or that branch or officer of the government to whom the petition is to be presented.

"The right to petition the government without the right to visit the seat of government is inconceivable. Such a right carries with it my right as a citizen to go to you wherever you are discharging the functions of office--to the national capitol if necessary. It carries with it my right to go to the White House, to go to the very office of the president himself, under proper restrictions and proper regulations necessary for his safety and the conduct of public business, and there refer my petition for a redress of grievance to him who is the representative of the executive branch of the government. It carries with it the right to go into the courts of justice, not by written petition alone, but to go there in person and present my cause or defense, as the case may be. It is a right to go in person to the government that I may argue a petition for a redress of my grievances. It is not merely an empty right to send across the continent to you a petition by mail, or a petition to some senator or to the president asking for a redress of grievances, but to present in an orderly and proper manner in that petition in person.

"So, sir, when Mr. Coxey came upon these capitol grounds for the purpose of presenting his petition, which I have quoted at length, a petition perfectly peaceable and couched in elegant language, and under the constitution as viewed and executed by an honest tribunal or honest officer, his rights are as sacred as those of the most exalted citizen of the land, and the policeman's club that was aimed at his head under these circumstances was a blow at the constitutional right of all American citizens to peaceably assemble, and while assembled to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.

"Sir, this right has been exercised on more than one occasion on these capitol grounds. But a few years ago the late lamented Carter Harrison, of Chicago, addressed an assembly from the capitol steps.[10] Dennis Kearney, of California, of some notoriety, also addressed an assembly from the same place;[11] and in looking over the precedents of the senate I find it has been the custom, instead of being the exception, to open the senate chamber itself to speakers upon different occasions.

"In 1866 it was opened to Bishop Matthew Simpson[12] for the purpose of delivering an address. It was opened to Murdock for the purpose of entertainment.[13] It has been opened to fully a half dozen other persons within the last 25 years.

"I read from the document I referred to: 'There have been a few instances in which the senate chamber has been used for other meetings than those of the senate. In all cases these assemblies have been of a religious or charitable nature. March 16, 1822 the chaplains of congress where granted permission to occupy the chamber on the following day "for the purpose of public worship." Dr. Sherwood and Dr. Dwight to use the chamber to explain a discovery of the laws regulating the variation of the magnetic needle.[14] January 24, 1865, Bishop Simpson was tendered the use of the chamber for the delivery of a lecture. This was by unanimous consent.'

"There is much more of this to be in Senate Miscellaneous document No. 68, fifty-second congress, second session.

"So it has been the custom until very recently to come here and occupy the senate chamber itself on different occasions for the purpose of delivering sermons, lectures, and the like.

"I recognize as fully, and am as deeply sensible as any man in this chamber can be, the necessity of police regulation for the control of these grounds and this building, but the line of demarcation is not to be drawn according to territory. It must be drawn upon other lines.

"So long as American citizens congregate upon the capitol grounds of this nation for peaceable and lawful purposes, if they do not disturb the transaction of the public business, if they do not menace the public peace, if they do not threaten or menace life or property, or obstruct the highways and passages leading to and from this capitol, no man upon the face of the earth, let him occupy whatever position he may, has the lawful right to prevent them from speaking or presenting to congress their petitions. This is the line that is observed by the constitution, and the only practical rule that can be applied in its construction.

"Mr. President, these rights were, on the first day of the previous month, ruthlessly and unlawfully violated. It will not do for any gentleman to suppose that within a week or two the attention of the American people will be turned away from this outrage and that it will be suffered to sink out of sight like many other public transactions have been lost sight of. It will not do to have this resolution and put it in some cavern or dark recess of this capitol and let it sleep with the millions of others that have preceded it.

"The American people believe that the right of peaceable assemblage and to petition the government for a redress of grievances has been assaulted and beaten down here. They believe that the right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances has been unlawfully assailed, and while they have no particular sympathy with Coxey or Browne or any other individual, they demand and will continue to demand at our hands a close and religious recognition of the right of every American citizen to come upon these grounds and petition for a redress of his grievances.

"The republican side of this chamber believe that we ought not to repeal the present McKinley act,[15] because it will bring distress to the homes of the laborers of this country, they say. They stand as they tell us, for the largest liberty and the largest measure of privilege for the laboring man. They are extremely anxious to have him afforded an opportunity to labor and to earn a livelihood for himself and family, and this they expect to accomplish by taxing the laborers and consumers of other portions of the country.

"The democratic party, on the other hand, but for identically the same purpose, say that the McKinley act must be repealed and tariff taxation reduced to the revenue necessities of the government.

"These parties are seeking to reach the same end by different roads; and yet, sir, I noticed the other day that when I presented a resolution upon this most important subject under discussion, a subject that reaches the very liberties of the citizen and lies at the very foundation of liberty, the first man that assailed my resolution was a distinguished democratic senator on this side of the chamber. The next one who assailed it was a distinguished protectionist on the other side, and the next was a protectionist sitting a little nearer the main aisle of this chamber; and the learned senator from Delaware (Mr. Gray) assailed it in vigorous terms.[16]

"There was a singular unanimity of opinion between these leaders of the republican and democratic parties as to driving poor Coxey and his followers from the capitol grounds or out of the District of Columbia itself.

"They turned a deaf ear to the constitutional right of this man. They turned a deaf ear to 70,000,000 of fellow-citizens, who spoke to them through Coxey. They turned a deaf ear to the rough and ruthless over-riding of constitutional principles. They were companions and fellow factors in praising a violation of the constitution of their nation, and yet, in the next breath, I witnessed these distinguished representatives of the two leading political parties of this country almost tearing the hair from each other in a heated discussion upon the tariff, which, it is said, is designed to relieve the people.

"Mr. President, important as the tariff question is, and as I regard it, it is not of the slightest importance to the American people when their primary constitutional rights are taken from them.

"Sir, when you stifle the rights of the American citizen, whoever he may be, who stands peaceably and lawfully under the shadow of the flag of his country and proclaims his honest opinions in a peaceable and lawful manner: when you deprive him of the right to go to any branch of his government and petition it for a redress of his grievances, then memory is a mockery, and the right of the people is taken form them by an unlawful and cruel usurpation of power.

"Mr. President, I have no desire to consume any more time in the discussion of this matter. I have done my duty as best I could. I have done it conscientiously. It is sad and not a pleasing duty to perform. If, by doing so, I shall call down upon my head the anathemas of those in power, I proclaim in this presence that I am amply able to undergo the ordeal.

"If I shall meet with the scorn and indignation of any portion of the people of this country inconsiderately expressed and afterward to be regretted, for advocating the rights and cause of the nation, then I say to such persons that I prefer their scorn and indignation, I prefer their hatred and contempt, under such circumstances, to their approval, applause, and smiles, under other circumstances."

Reader, where in all history is there a man who has made a grander stand for the rights of the people, and that almost single handed and alone against the almost invisible and therefore most powerful money power of the world? It requires tremendous force of character to uphold the right against the ill-concealed sneers of your daily associates and fight an almost invisible and intangible wrong that you can hardly lay your hands on in order to fight it with more effect.

Notes