Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1879-05-14

PRESIDENT HAYES Us. TUE ARMY BILL.

PRESIDENT HAYES rs. TUE ARMY BILL.
President Hayes has put another check
on the revolutionary legislation Of that dis
crete () assemblage of statesmen (2) now
fooling away the time and money of the
country at Washington, and thrown another
shell into the camp of the democracy, by
prompt veto of the army bill. Below is the
veto message:
TO he House Of Representatives. After careful
consideration Of the bill entitled "an act to pro-
hibit military interference nj elections" return
II TO the House Of Representatives In which II
originated with the following objections to its
approval.
In the communication sent to the House Of Rep
resentatives on the Goth Of last month returning
TO the House without my approval the bill entitled
T" An act making appropriations for the support Of
the army for the fiscal year ending June 30 1880
and for other purposes endeavored to show
by quotations from the statutes Of the United
States now in force and by brief statement Of
facts in regard to recent elections in the several
states, that no additional legislation was necessary
to prevent interference with the elections by the
military or naval forces Of the United States The
fact was presented in that communication that Mt
the time Of the passage Of the act of June 18th,
1873 in relation to the employment of the army
as the posse comudtus or otherwise II was main
tanned by its friends that it would establish
vital and fundamental principle which would Sc
cure the people protection against standing
army. The fact was also referred to that since
the passage Of this act, Congressional state and
municipal elections have been held throughout
the Union and that in no instance has complaint
been made Of the presence of a United States
soldier Mt the polls Holding as do, the opinion
that any military interference whatever at the
polls is contrary to the spirit Of institutions,
and would tend to destroy the freedom Of cleo
tons, and sincerely desiring to concur with Com
gress in all of its measures, 1t Is with very great
regret that am forced to the conclusion that the
bill before me Is not only not necessary to prevent
such interference, but is dangerous departure
from long settled and important constitutional
principles.
The true rule as to the employment Of military
force at the elections is not doubtful. No intm-
dation or coercion should be allowed to control or
influence citizens in the exercise OF their right to
vote, whether IL appears in the shape OF comb-
nations of evil-dispOsed persons of armed bodies
OF the militia of n state Of the military force Of
the United States The elections should be free from
all forcibe interference, and as far as practicable
from all apprehension Of such interference no sol
diers, either of the Union or of the state militia,
should be present Mt the polls to take the place
to perform the duties of the ordinary civil police
force. There has been and will be no violation Of
this rule under orders from me during this ad-
ministraton, hut there should be no denial Of the
right OF the national government to employ its
military force on any day and Mt any place in
case such employment Is necessary TO enforce the
CONSTITUTION ana laws OF tne lnlteu states.
The bill before me sas follows: Be il enacted
etc, that it shall not be lawful 10 bring to, en-
ploy at, any place where general or special cleo
ton is being held in state any part of the army
or navy of the United States unless such force be
necessary to repel the armed enemies Of the United
states or to enforce section A. article of the Con
stltution of the United States, and the laws made
in pursuance thereof, on application of the legis-
lature or executive of the state where such force
is to be used and so much Of all laws as is incon-
sstent herewith Is hereby repealed"
1t will be observed that the bill exempts from
the general prohibition against the employment
OF military force at the polls two specified cases
These exceptions recognize and concede the sound
ness of the principle that military force may prop
erly and constitutionally be used at the place of
elections, when such use is necessary to enforce
the Constitution and the laws But the excepted
cases leave the prohibition so extensive and far
reaching that its adoption will seriously impair
the efficiency of the Executive Department of the
government The first act expressly authorizing
the use OF military power to execute the laws was
passed almost as early as the organization Of the
government under the Constitution, and was APP
proved by President Washington, May I'd, 1872
1t was as follows
Section 9 And be it further enacted, that
whenever the laws of the United States shall he
opposed or the execution thereof be obstructed in
any state by combinations too powerful to be sup
pressed by the ordinary course of judicial pro-
ceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals
by this act, the same being notified to the Presi-
dent of the United States by an Associate Justice
or the District Judge, it shall he lawful for the
President Of the United States to call forth the
militia of such state to suppress such combine
tons and to cause the laws to be duly executed,
and If the militia of state where such combina-
tons may happen shall refuse be insufficient to
suppress the same it shall be lawful for the Pres
dent, II the legislature Of the United States be
not in session, to call forth and employ such num-
bers OF the militia of any other state or states
most convenient thereto as may be necessary.
and the use of militia to be called forth may
be continued, If necessary, until the expiration of
thirty days after the commencing of the ensuing
| session.
President Hayes continues in support of
his reasons by liberal quotations from acts
of Congress bearing upon the question from
| 1892 down to more recent dates.