New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-06-23
THE PRESIDENT oUTsPOKEN.

TON LAWS TO BE Neutrality-suspicious. TO
THE JUDICIAL BILL
lBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.i
WASHINGTON, June 22.-The President will re-
turn the Army and Judicial Appropriation bills to
the House tomorrow, the former with his approval
and the latter with veto.
The Presidents views concerning both of these
bills have been well understood by his friends ever
since they first took their present shape While
speaking about the subject this evening with CORE
spondent of The TRIBUNE he went over the ques-
tons raised by the bills with considerable minute
ness.
he said that the only portion of the Army Appro-
rraton bill abont which any difference of opinion
had arisen was that forbiddng the of any part OF
the money appropriated by the bill for the support
or TRANSFORMATION of soldiers to be used as police
force to keep the peace at the polls. That there
was some difference of opinion among Re-
puJlicans 10 to the force and effect of this
clause he admitted, and he had no desire
10 criticise any who should differ with
lim on tits point; but he has to act upon his
own understanding of the phrase, and in that he
was perfectly clear. An argument might be made,
he admitted, to show that the words in question
have no meaning In the manner in which they are
used in this bill and that ii would make differ
euce whether they were retained or omitted but he
held and In this he believed that he agreed with
large majority of the Republicans, that they do
have a meaning, and that meaning is one that can
easily be understood.
The controversy between the two parties in Con-
ercss he said was not one that had arisen now for
the first time. 1t has been IN progress for three
months, and in the meantime some things have been
settled, and among them he believed to be the
meaning Of the term police force. In fact, he had
drawn the distinction between the use of an army
as an army and police force III one OF his veto
messages A police force, as the President under
stands tho term, is civil force like constables,
sherfs and marshals. The members of such force
arrest people on warrants, or on view when they
witness the commission of q crime.
For the purpose Of .arrestlng persons, they are
armed with clubs or maces to overcome resistance,
OF with revolvers for use In extreme cases. Their
function is to make arrests and TO hold people. The
function of the soldier is entirely different and he
Is therefore differently armed. No one ever heard
of a soldier serving warrants, making arrests and
holding people in time of peace. 1t is only when
the resistance to the policewhether that police
composed of cOnstabes, marshals or shoriffs' civil
Oficers-is SO great that they cannot perform their
duty that the soldier Is called in 10 sweep away
such resistance with the bayonet, musketry, and,
in extreme cases, cannon.
THE ARMY BILL IMPERATIVE.
Having explained this obvious difference between
police force and q military force, the President
ssId that While it is true that soldiers may some
times be used as police force In Latin countries,
they are never so used in this country or In Eng
land The clause IN question, therefore. simply for
bids something which never occurs. and which.
moreover, is already forbidden by existing laws.
Besides this the fact that one particular of the
Army at the polls is singled out and forbidden by
Implication is equivalent TO an admission that any
Inv is
proved.
In the Presidents opinion, therefore, the proviso
Of the Army Appropriation bill is imperative, since
II makes no change existing law. But even If II
did make change nc would approve 1t because he
believes il TO be right,
From his analysis of the effect Of this proposed
law IT will be seen, the President does not think
that It's enactment Will prevent him from using the
military force of the United states in any way which
Is now lawful at the polls and elsewhere, and this
belief he distinctly avOws. If the execution of the
laws is resisted election day other day, at
the polls or elsewhere, and if the civil officers
prevented from performing their duty, the soldiers
the United states will be used If necessary to put
down such Resistance.
Finally the President said that he would not be
Justified in vetOng the Army bill because it had
failed to make AN appropriation for specific pur-
pose, namely. 60 support the Army to be used as a
police force at the polls even ii ne thought that de-
sirab,e as he did not That might De a good reason
why a member Of Congress might vote against the
bill-that question he would not discuss-but il
was not a sufficient reason why he should veto
Lii making other and far more important appro-
priatiOns.
OBJECrONs TO TIE JUDICIAL BILL
The Judicial Appropriation bill, be said, raised
all the questions. with exception. which were
IL
vetoed. IL raised others not suggested by
thcm. His message ASSIGNING his reasons for
Withholding his Signature TO that bill will not be
more than one-half or one-third long as either
Of tie former veto messages, but win refer to the
discussion of the several points contained in those
messages
After briefly calling attention to the clause for
bidding the OF any money appropriated by the
bill 10 pay general or SPECIAL deputy marshas for
services at elections or 10 carry out any Of the pro-
Visions Of chapter 26 Of the Revised Statutes, and
fOrbdding the making of any contracts or involving
the Government of the United States in any obliga-
ton Tor the purposes named, the President will say
that the bill is Objectionable first, because 1t is
legislation foreign 10 the general purpose of the bill
which il is sought TO force the Executive TO approve
against his judgment This attempt TO the Ex-
ecutiye Department of the Government is something
u sufficient reason for vetoing the bill In spite Of
The recent denials the President says the whole
oIft Of debate on the Democratic side especially IN
the House of Representatives. has been IN the
nature Of threat that unless the appropriation
D'is are accepted by the President with all their
'onui'loDs, and whether his judgment approves
"oSo CONDITIONS or not no appropriations will be
ii"u'. lhese same threats were made in speeches
% 'iS judicial bill, and that WIS the logic Of the
"I0ie proceeding on the part of the majority.