The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-05-23
SOLDIERS AT ELECTIONS.


SOLDIERS AT ELECTIONS.
New York San.]
In his late veto message Mr.. Hayes
says a great deal about s:national cleo
tions." What does he mean? 1t might
be supposed from his language that the
principal business for which the Federal
Government had been created was to
look after the elections. But let us
see.
What has Congress or the President
to do with an election for President ?
Simply nothing. The Constitution says:
ssEach State shall appoint, in such
manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number OF electors"
What have they to do with Con-
gressional elections? Next to nothing.
The Constitution says: "The times,
tiOns for Senators and Representatives
shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress
may ut any time by law make or alter
such regulations, except as to the places
of choosing Senator'S" Upon a strained
construction of this language, giving to
Congress concurrent Jurisdiction with
the States, guarded and limited as it is,
is based the whole of the Republican
election machinery, supervisors and
marshals, c osting the people unknown
sums, and terrorizing and obstructing
them, not only at Congressional elec-
held at the same times and places. But
nobody has ever yet claimed that this
provision of the Constitution author
ICES the President to send troops to
the polls and hold bayonet elections.
Hayes pretends to think that stat
ute which forbids him to order soldiers
to the polls, abridges in some mystic
rious manner the power of tho Govern
ment to protect itself, or to execute its
laws. Now, in Great Britain this same
law is fundamental. No soldier or
body of soldiers can be brought within
a certain distance of any polling place,
but nobody ever imagined that the
British Government was weakened
thereby. On the contrary, it is strength
ened, as all Governments are strong
which rest OH the assent and live in the.
affections of the people. This curious
idea Of Mr.. Hayes will provoke smile
of contempt among the freemen of old
England, where the appearance of any
portion of the army at a polling place
would be regarded as an act of treason
on the part of the Ministry by whom it
was either ordered or permitted.
Inerc Is In the message q deal OF IL
logical and inconsequential twaddle
about the laws which have, from time
to time, authorized the President to
employ the armed forces of the United
States to assist the civil authorities to
execute the laws. The sum of it all is
this: Upon the call of the Legislature
or Executive of any State, the Presi-
dent may send tho army into that
State to protect it from destruction by
invasion or instruction. That is all
he can do in case Of resistance to State
laws; it is the beginning and the end
Of his power. But when the laws of
the United States are opposed and OBJ
structcd by combinations too powerful
to be dealt with by the civil authority,
he may, upon certificatiOn of the fact,
employ the whole military force of the
United States to put down tho insur-
rection. But in both cases, whether
thc,opposition be to the laws of a State
or OF the United States, tho military
arm can be raised only to overcome
resistance which has reached the pro-
portions of insurrcction or invasion.
All else is a mere abuse. But nowhere
do we find any constitutional power to
station soldiers at the polls, even in
times of invasion or Instruction. That,
at least, is unlawful at all times ana
under all circumstances; and Hayes's
pretence that the right to do so is nee
essary to the due execution of any law
OF the United States is, like Hayes
himself, q nero fraud.