Daily globe., 1879-06-13


pesl was proposed did not happen in that par
ticular instance to be in harmony with the
executive, and was therefore considered by the
author OF the message as furnishing suitable
occasion to deliver to the House of Represen-
tatives gratuitous lecture upon the methods
in which it should discharge its constitutional
functions.
As the President has twice called the atten-
tion of the House to these objections, the first
two may be referred to hereafter, but with re-
gard to the third, it is perhaps sufficient to say
that the manner in, which Congress chose to
repeal the clause in question was not only in
strict conformity to the constitution and rules
of the two houses respectively, but justified by
numerous precedents in the annals of federal
legislation.
Impressed with the Importance of removing
the last shadow of pretext for any interfer-
ence whatever with State elections by the
armed forces of the United States, and de-
string to obviate, if possible, the President's
objections to the measure already proposed for
the purpose, the House of Represen tatives
promptly passed q separate bill which was as
promptly concurred in by the Senate, simply
providing that it should not be lawful to bring
or employ at any place where general or
special election is being held. in any State any
part of the army or navy, unless such forces
should be necessary to repel armed enemies of
the United States, or to enforce section Of the
constitution aud the laws made in pursuance
thereof, and repeating all provisions inconsist-
ent with the purposes Of the bill. This bill
was speedily returned, with message from the
President assigning his objections to its ap-
proval, which are now to be considered.
The first Of these objections is simple repe-
tition of the one assigned in the message veto
ing the army appropriation bill. No one can
read the two messages together without being
struck by the marked difference in the tone of
the two documents. In respect to this objec-
T. NJ 49, <SN lr
tween the two messages, and continues: The en-
tire argument against the necessity of the bill
is left to rest upon the Presidents reitereated
assertion that troops have not been and will
not be used to interfere with any State election
during his administration. That assertion was,
no doubt, sincere but, unfortunately for it's
validity as reason for refusing to approve
bill designed for the protection Of future gem
erations as we'll as this. the official term
of the present executive is limited, and he may
be succeeded by one who will feel q less scrupu-
lous regard for freedom and purity Of ballot
than he processes himself to entertain.
The next objection to the approval of the bill,
a. alleged in the message, is that it would abro.
gate on certain days and certain places, a
number of laws, but especially section 5,298 of
the revised statutes, which is reverently re-
ferred to as an ancient and fundamental
law, which has been in force from the founda-
tlon of the government, and seems to be re-
garded by the President as invested with some
peculiar sanctity, not pertaining to any other
provision in the entire system of American
Jurisprudence. He enlargcs upon the state
ment that this section was sanctioned sub
stantially by Washington, Jefferson and Lin
coin, and contains the principle which was act
ed on by the four Presidents. more endeared to
the American people than all Others at the most
critical periods in their respective administra-
tions. Ifhe had examined facts connected with
the transactions to which he alludes he would
have found that neither Of the four illustrious
patriots and statesmen to whom he refers
would not have been perfectly lawful under
the strictest letter of the bill he returned to
the House had it been in force at the time. He
would have discovered, moreover, that neither
of them even construed either of the acts
cited by him as comforting upon the President
extra legal powers, but merely as authorizing
the use of necessary means for securing the
execution of the law in regular methods and
through the agencies prescribed by Law.
In support Of his assertion Knott refers to
the action Of Washington in the whisky insur-
Of jackson in 1882; and Lincoln on the out
break Of the civil war, and adds: 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 ,29S, are as completely abrogated or
Lincoln on the 9Th Of February, 1856, as they
possibly could be by the bill to prevent mill
tary interference with elections, had he re-
turned it to the House with his approval. He
seems to have totally forgotten that the law ap-
proved by Lincoln on the 9th of February
1866 making it misdemeanor in him or other
officers of the United States to employ armed
men at State elections, except for two specified
purposes, was still in force and that it was as
much his duty under his official oath to see
that it should be faithfully executed as any
other provision In the statutes.
The report afirms that power to establish po-
lice regulations, which may be neces-
sary for the preservation of domestic
order and prevention of violence and
crime affecting life or property within
their respective limits, belong exclusively to
the States and the federal government, which
can only intervene to protect State in the ex-
ecution of its own laws for that purpose, upon
the application of the legislature, or the Gov
ernor. where the legislature cannot be conven-
ed. Supreme court decisions are quoted in
support of this position, and following is an
extract from letter of the present secretary of
state, which the attorney general, under .
former administration, sent by him to the
marshal of Florida on the Goth Of August; 1868:
The special duty and authority in the execu-
tion OF the process issued to you, must not be
confounded with the duty and authority of
suppressing disorder and preserving the peace,
whicE under our government, belongs to the
civil authorities of the States, and not to the
civil authority of the United States y
The report continues: To prevent the substi-
tuition of the discretion of the petty super-ser-
vicable federal officials for law, the soldier with
his bayInet for the civil officer with his warrant,
and other dangerous abuses to which the recent
experience of our, country has shown it to
be liable, was the sole object. and would have
been only effect of the bill to prevent military
interference ct polls, which the President found
it impossible to approve.
The third and final objection
offered by the President to the bill
is, to use his own language, :'its discrimination
IN favor Of State and against the national au-
thority.'' Under the constitution the
federal government has not and
no law of Congress can give
it authority to preserve peace in . State either
ut the polls or elsewhere, unleas acted upon by
proper State authorities for that purpose, under
circumstances for which the constitution was
provided. How, therefore, could possibly
be discrimination against an authority that
docs not and cannot exist, it is difficult to
REQ. It Is equally impossible to discover how
distinct reservation Of power. Of the President
to suppress an insurrection against the govern
msnt of State 1t any time or place when
properly called upon can be said to derogate
from the authority Of the United States.