Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-06-11
THE MILITARY At ELECTIONS.
Report of he House Judiciary Com.
mite Oia the Presidents Veto
Message

Report of! he House Judiciary Com.
mite OM the Presidents Veto
Message
At meeting OF the House judiciary commit
tee to-day, Hon. ). Proctor Knott. the chair.
man, submitted his report on the MESSAGE of
the President vetoing the Dill to prevent mill
interference with elections. After the reading
of the document some discussion arose, during
which the republican members of the commit
tee gave assurance that they would not object
to TO- TIE R presentation Of the report to the Hous.
m1tted; the idea Of desiring this procedure b.
Ing to afford the minority an Opportunity
Ibe Veto their views up
that this course should be pursued, Chairma5
/ Knott was authorized, without dissent to rero
Iae t pnS IT. to the House at the first opprt
Ihe report, after line Of Introduction, pro
ceeds as follows:
presence of armed troops at the ballot box NAV
not now be discussed. They have been reDeatei
yEiilustrated In the history Of our own and other
countries If they are not sufficiently Obvious in
deed to suggest themselves Instantly to the
me st ordinary capacity. The present Secretary
OF War has laid it down in his work on the
American law OF elections as an automatic
truth that IAN armed force In the neighborhood
OF the polls Is almost OF necessity, menace to
the voters and an interference with their free
dom and independence and even the author OF
the message under consideration himself admits
that any military interference whatever at the
polls IS contrary to the spirit of our institutions
and would tend to destroy the freedom of elec-
tions.'" The circumstances under which the
legislation OF 1865, which is substantially the
same as that now In force on the subject, was
passed, are then reviewed.
Reference is made to the apprehension felt at
the time that the clause authorizing the use of
the army ''to keep the peace at the polls would
be either ignOrantly or Wilfully misconstrued as
an attempt by Congress to confer upon federal
officials authority TO perform the functions of
cOnservators OF the peace at state elections, and
effectually destroy the freedom Of the ballot and
evade the penalties prescribed by the act with
impunity. The report adds" In the light of
recent history it Is unnecessary to enumerate
the repeated and alarming Instances in which
their apprehensions In that regard have been
more than justified To remove that pretext,
IN d9eIefore; a and prevent Il possible, recurrence
sent Congress, In the exercise Of its undoubted
right to prescribe the purposes for which the
lad and naval forces of the government shall
be used, saw proper In making appropriations
for the support Of the army for the ensuing
year to strike those words from the statutes, so
that 1t should not only be clearly unlawful, but
apenal offence for any federal official to en-
ploy troops or armed men at state election for
any purpose whatever, except to repel the
armed enemies Of the United States.a The
fate of this measure is then recited and the rea-
sons given by the President for returning it
without his approval are discussed.
In answer to the Presidents objection to the
III.
report says:-"I 1t may not be improper to sug-
gest here that the constitution authorizes eacn
House to determine the rules of its own pro-
ceedings and without pausing to consider
whether an unsolicited and censor1ous sugges-
tion by the Executive to either of them, as to
the proposed mode OF procedure In accordance
ed as an impertinent interference with the CON
Stftut1onal privileges OF the legislative depart
ment OF the government 1t Is perhaps sufficient
TO say that the manner In which Congress chose
TO T6DpaI the cl41lSo In question In
strict conformity to the constitution and the
rules OF the two Houses respectively, but justi-
fed by numerous preeedents In the annals Of
federal legislation" His approval Of the bill
containing the posse cO'aitatus clause Is cited
against the President, and the report adds:
"lt might not be improper, therefore, for the
sfstency Of bis own Official record, II not to the
ordinary prOprteties which have hitherto char
actertZed communications between the chile
executive magistrate and the supreme legisla
ture OF the country II he should again deem
his duty to volunteer his advice to the House
OF Representatives as to its mode of procedure
its individual MEMBERS The reasons I psufoI for tn
action OF Congress in thus passing the repeal
Ing Clauses as separate measure are given
viewed.
A difference in tone between the two mes
sageS Is noted. The inevitable conclusion t
all authority to employ the military power o
the United States at the polls, even In aid
civil Officers was tacitly, IL not expressly alb
}nred; a. Inere n Is no such disclaimer, however,
there Is where the danger lies. 'Tn times OF
high political excitement, in localities where
the contending parties are nearly equally bal
anced, or where the unscrupulOuS leaders of q
corrupt minority In political accord with those
who have controlof the troops, are determined
6 oy ehngg ofe OF to
and disturbances viii be easily simulated and
bayonets readily furnished under the pretext
pq5 the to
OF the ballot. The entire argument against the
necessity OF the bill is therefore left to rest
4oons i Nave ro naar assertion that
interfere with any state elections during his
administration. That assertion was no doubt
as reason for refusing to approve bin de-
signed for the protection Of future generations
Executive is limited, and he may be succeeded
in the exalted position he occupies by one who
viii feel less scrupul0us regard for the freedom
self to entertain. Moreover he Is human and
liable TO change, and no one but himself can
know to what extent the partisan debates"
In answer to the Presidents objection to the
measure, based upon the laws which it would
aDrogate the report takes up in succession the
Glted examples OF the actions OF previous
PRESIDENTS under these laws, as In the case of the
whisky insurrection the Aaron Burr matter,
etc, and says: at Is abundantly evident there
fore, that even had the President approved the
Dill ne could In q similar contingency have done
everything that was done by either of his Illus
tr1OuS predecessors In the instances cited, with
out violating the letter or spirit OF the act"
1t continues under the same head: "a suf-
fcient answer however to this objection is that
It is not true. Owing perhaps to the limited
time he allowed himself in which to prepare
his message, the President failed to observe the
fact that the various statutes to which he
refers including section 5,29s, are as completely
abrogated or suspended by the act approved by
1861 as they possibly could be by the bill to
prevent military interference with elections
had he returned it to the House with his ap-
proval. A mere glance at the two provisions
VIII suffice to place this proposition beyond
all possible doubt or controversy in any intelli-
gent and candid mind"
1T is matter OF regret, therefore, If not of
surprise, that the President should have per-
mltted himself, whether from over anxiety to
mo reasons In support OF predetermined veto,
or from mere tnattentiOn to the provisions of
existing law, to assume position SO utterly
deVo1d OF foundation, In fact"
decisions OF the Supreme Court are cited to
snow that sections 2Q02 and 552S, OF the Revised
statutes, do not even make it lawful for an
olllcer OF the United States to assume to keep
the peace at the polls Of a state election
They simply relieve the act OF employing troops
or armed men by such officer from certain
penalties which its pepetuatiOn, without that