The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1871-01-15
. - thS 80 z IS
Military In Elections.


MIA, which relate to the armed military
interference of the Federal Government
in elections, point out as palpable vio-
iatlon of the spirit, maxims and methods
OF civil liberty rs has ever been witness
ed in country professedly free. Inas-
much as it is given out that this proceed
ure will be renewed at future elections,
with greater preparations for intimida-
tion and coercion, it becomes the people
to keep ever in their view that their
whole system.of liberties is based upon
the idea that civil affairs are to be admi-
nistered by the civil arm, except in cases
of insurrection and rebellion palpably
beyond the control Of the civil authori-
ty, in which case the citizen militia of
the States, and not the standing army,
is to be first called upon. It will not be
denied by any one that the lessons aid
maxims of OWL, personal and political
liberty inherited by the founders Of our
own Government from the English peo.
pie were carefully embodied iii our con-
stitution and laws. We were, in fact,
substantially the samo people, and our
revolutionary struggle was dictated by n
desire to secure our equal share Of those
rights and liberties for which common
ancestry had struggled and fought
through ages, and which were especially
vindicated in the English revolution of
1858. A historical sketch of the legisla-
ton and the growth of public opinion
on this subject in England, has lately
appeared, which presents q strong array
of examples of the stern and unsleeping
vigilance with which the military power
in that country has been confined within
it's legitimate limits. The statesmen of
England were not satisfied in reaching,
two centuries ago, such propositions as
that the crown cannot by law raise or
equip standing army, in time of peace,
without the consent of Parliament, and
that royal authority over the army must
be exercised only through minister di-
rectly responsible to Parliament, and to
whom the commander-in-c should
be subordinate. They went beyond
making the representatives of the peo-
pie practically supreme in military af-
fairs. They provided that neither
voters, Legislators nor judicial tribunals
should be intimidatcd by soldiers no
matter by whom raised or commanded.
More than 200 years ago, Parliament
protested against the spectacle of
sovereign approaching the exercise of
official power under the protection of
the soldiery. At period even earlier,
military forces were excluded from To-
calities where judicial tribunals were
held, and during the time of the session
Of the courts. In respect to the election
of members of the House of Commons,
the aversion to the presence of armed
soldiery was even more apparent. Not
only were organized military bodies
rigidly excluded from elections, but one
of the earliest orders of William, Prince
Of Orange, in 1888, was that requiring
soldiers to be marched out from town
where they were stationed when an elec-
ton was to take place therein.
Subsequently William the III issued
orders to the same effect, and in 1876 an
Act was passed to the effect that all
elections ought to be free, and making
it imperative on the Secretary of War to
town one day at least before the day of
election to the distance of two or more
miles, until one day at least after the
election shall have closed. An infringe
ment of the law by the authorities of
Westminster in 1741 was followed by
their being brought before the House of
Commons and ordered to receive O rep
rimand on their knees, which the
Speaker administered. Even as late as
the year 1861, exception was taken in the
House of Commons to the presence of
even volunteers in military array at the
unopposed election of the late Lord
Palmerston, and they were by law pro-
hibited on all future occasions from
assembling at drill or for any other pur-
pose between the issue of the writ and
the termination of the election, or dur
ing the progress of any munich pal cleo
ton. The royal regulations for the
army when aiding the civil power, issued
in 1868, place the troops, from first to
last, even if they have to fire, under the
directions of the magistrate, and their
whole spirit renders elections sacred.
In the military interference complained
OF in elections in this country, it is not
even the militia of the respective States,
who are citizens in interest and daily
association, who have been called upon
for that purpose, but the standing army
proper, a body organized apd paid 10
protect the people from foreign inva-
sion. It is for this purpose that the
people pay them, and not to overawe
themselves and control the working of
their civil institutions.
The wrong ia even more aggravated
here than in England, because it not