The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1879-05-17
orsrthrsw Of the Popular Win.

VsHtthAtH " Nao = tfe-~A
The people, ii.Tough their representa-
tivcs in Congress, have again had their
viii thwarted by Mr.. Hayes, BY the inter
position Of veto to the bill to prohibit
military interference at elections. The
veto message contains but little except
what was expressed in the veto of the army
appropriation bin, and the conclusion is
tho same--Hthat no additional legislation
was necessary to prevent Interference with
the elections BY the military or naval forces
Of the United States" Mr. Hayes BY this
veto has assumed the position Of supreme
Judge, and arrays his opinion against con
siderable majorities in both branches Of
Congress, embracing many who stand far
above him in all the qualifications ofstatcs,
manship,
Mr.. Hayes says "no intimidation Or CO..
ercion should be allowed to control or in-
faence citizens in the exercise Of their
right to vote, and that "any military in
reference whatever at the polls is contrary
to the spirit Of our institutions and would
tend to destroy the freedom Of elections,
There is among the laws Of the United
States a statute permitting the President
to use the military and naval forces Of the
United States to keep the peace at the
polls The power to keep the peace at the
polls and at all other times is vested in
state authorities, aud when it is not sufh-
cicnt the constitution gives power to the
Legislature, when in session, or the Gov
error during a recess, to call upon the
President for the national forces. This is
''ihc spirit Of our institutions Mr., Hayes
alludes TO, and in order to carry out that
spirit Congress has passed bill repeating
the law permitting the military or naval
forces Of the United States to be sent to
any place where general or special elee-
ton is being held, except to repel armed
enemies Of the United States or upon the
call Of the legislature or governor Of the
state where such force is to be used, as
prescribed by the constitution.
Mr.. Hayes reasoning to sustain his ac
tion is irrelevant to the issue, and his con-
clusion is Inconsistent with his expressions
as above quoted. The question is whether
or not the United States military shall be
used at voting places, Mr., Hayes says
that any military interference wonld be
contrary to the spirit of our institutions,
yet refuses 10 sign bill repeating law
which allows the President TO send the
military to such voting places as he may
desire. Such is his consistency Such is
his arbitrary use Of power in defiance of
the viii Of the people
The law of 1892, quoted by Mr.. Hayes
is not pertinent to the issue. That law
did not give the President power to con-
troll elections, nor did it intend to give the
President any such authority. To enforce
the laws Of the United States and to in
terferc with elections arc entirely different
matters, and We will here remark that
Congress should not adjourn without re-
pealins the law providing for supervisors
Of elections. 1t is Unconstitutional aud
contrary to the spirit Of our institutions.
Mr. Hayes will veto il also, but then an
appeal can be taken TO the country upon
it as well as upon his other vctocs. The
laws of 1895 and 1907 do not bear upon
the subject either, aud the law Of 1861
was construed, in the unsettled decade
following, to warrant anything the radical
Congress and President might deem ne
cessary to subjugate the South aud to cor
troll elections in the States not in rebellion.
To maintain this power is the aim of the
Republican party to-day. Mr.. Hayes as
surcs the country that there shall be no
military interference ia elections during
his administration, but his record is not
such that would inspire much confidence
in him, aud the surest and safest way 10
prevent The possibility Of any such inter
ference would have been fer Mr.. Hayes
to sign the bly,. Let Congress repeal the
federal supervisor election law, pass the
necessary appropriation bills and adjourn,
and then carry the issue before the people,