The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-05-01
THE VETO MESSAGE.

hadlcal government
THE VETO MESSAGE.
A weaker on more dIslngenuous State paper
than Hayes veto message never emanated
from d President Of the United States.
Wholly without precedent, II is, both In spirit
and purpose, repugnant TO the genius Of the
constitution, and finds its Justification III the
l.deliberate misstatement and perversion Of
the law and the authorities.
The entire message ID directed, Of course,
against the sixth section Of the bill, which re-
peals the law authorizing the use Of the army
ITO keep the peace at the polls" and 1t ad
| vances four separate and distinct reasons for
vetolng the bill. The first OF these is that
| the enactment Of this repeating clause ID un-
necessary II the purpose Of II be merely to
| forbid the interference OF the army with the
free and fair exercise Of the suffrage. Any
| such use Of the army Is already amply pro-
| vided against In the very statutes under which
Dog Merrill dragooned this State In 1879. this
miserable fraud has the effrontery to sol
EMMY declare to an American Congress. After
quoting half dozen sections OF the original
election law, under which Grant found all
the authority he wanted to overturn and set
up State governments at the point Of the
| bayonet In the Southern States, Hayes goes
on to say that 1.-THE foregoing enactments
would seem to be sufficient to prevent mill
tary interference with elections" But, con-
tinues he, IL they are not sufficient for this
purpose. the proviso that the army shall not
| be used as posse con,itdiua, which was In
oorporated In the army bill passed June 49,
1878, Is conclusive, and ought ITO remove all
apprehension Of such interference
In the face Of all the enormitlea that have
been perpetrated by the Republican party,
under these statutes, against the free exer-
else OF the ballot, 1t IL difficult to properly
characterize the brazen impudence Of this
contemplate sophistry. Such talk as this Is
wanton insult to the intelligence Of the
country. What does IL mean2 Does Hayes
mean to say that, In using the army as 1t has
been used for the accomplishment Of It's In
famous principles In the South, the Repub-
lican party has acted arbitrarily and In plain
and avowed violation Of the law. and that It
has never sought to justify It's acts under the
constitution Or the law2 Yet this Is pre-
cisely what he does assert when he says that
"under the existing laws there can be no mill
tary interference with elections"
| The fact that no such interference has oc-
CURED since the passage Of the act OF June,
1878, argues nothing. Ii such acts were pos
sible under the law prior to the passage Of
that act, they are none the less SO now. That
act simply declares that troops shall not be
used as posse comitatus. except In cases
where such employment OF them Is specially
authorized, under the constitution, by act Of
Congress. Such employment Of them Is GER
tatnly specially provided for by act OF
| Congress, and the Republican party has
always held that the laws to that effect were
constitutional. Yet, says this man Hayes,
''there ID no necessity for the enactment OF
section of the bill before me to prevent
military interference with elections The laws
already In force are all that is required for
that end; but that part Of section OF this
bill which Is significant and vitality important,
is the clause which, II adopted. will deprive
the civil authorities of the United States OF
oil power to keep the reace at the congress
sional elections"
i In maintaining this right of Federal super
vision over State elections. which Is denied
by the Democrats us strenuously as the doc
trine Of military interference. Hayes refers to
two provisions OF the constitution section 4
Of article and the fifteenth amendment, as
authorizing legislation by Congress for the
regulation Of congressional elections. In re-
gard to the construction placed upon these
provisions Of the constitution by the Supreme
Court, he says:
The Supreme Court has held that this amend
ment invests the citizens Of the United States
with. o. new constitutional right which is
vuh be r Of be That
from the DETERMINATIONS In the exercise Of the
elective franchise on account, Of race color or
| Congress to protect this right hy appropriate
legislation Is expressly affirmed by the court.
more shameless perversion of the letter
and spirit Of the decision Of the Supreme
Court upon this question Is incon-
ceivable. The Supreme Court did assert
tie right and duty of Congress "to pro-
tect this right by appropriate legislation, .
but how and against whose aggression
Against that of Congress itself and of the
States. In this very decision, to which
Mr. Hayes refers, it was held that no
authority Is conferred on the general
government by the fifteenth amend
ment to control, supervise OF enforce
the exercise Of the right OF suffrage. This
power and duty still remained, unmodified.
In the hands Of the State. to whose authority
exclusively the individual voter is response
BILE. 1t was declared with emphasis that the
power of the Federal government and the
appropriate legislation of Congress ex-
tended no further than to assure the right Of
citizens OF the United States to vote against
all denial or abridgment by the United States
or by ang State, on account Of race, color CT
previous condition Of servitude; that the
dealings Of Congress were with the States.
and that the relations between the State and
the individual remained undisturbed, and
that there could arise no occasion for the ex-
ercise OF the power conferred On Congress by