Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1879-05-15


United States as he may deem necessary
to enforce the faithful execution of the
laws of the United States, or to suppress
such rebellion, in whatever State or ter
ritory thereof the laws of the United
States may be forcibly opposed, or the
execution thereof forcihly obstructed.'
The ancient and fundamental law has
been i'll force from the foundation of the
Government. 1t is now proposed to alb
rogate it on certain days and at certain
places. In my judgment no fact has
been produced which tends to show that
it ought to be repealed or suspended for
single hour at any place in any of the
States or territories of the Union. All
the teachings of experience in the course
of our history are in favor of sustaining
its efficiency unimpaired on every occa-
sion when the supremacy of the Consti-
tuition has been resisted, and the perpe-
tuity of our Institutions imperilled, the
principle of this statute enacted by the
fathers has enabled the Government of
the Union to maintain its authority and
to preserve the integrity of the nation at
the most critical period of our history.
My predecessors in the Executive Office
have relied ON this great principle. 1t
was on this principle that President
Washington suppressed the whisky re-
bellion in Pennsylvania, in 1894. In 1906,
on the same principle, President Jeffer-
son broke up the Burr conspiracy, by is
suing orders for the employment of such
a force, either of regulars or of the
militia and by such proceedings of the
civil authorities as might enable them
to suppress effectually the further pro-
gress of the enterprise. 1t was under
the same authority that President Jack
son crushed the notification in South
Carolina and that President Lincoln is
sued his call for troops to save the Union
in 1861. On numerous other occasions
of less significance, under probably every
and certainly under the
present, this power has been usefully
exerted to enforce the laws without OBJ
lection by any party in the country, and
almost without attracting public atten-
ton. The great elementary conStitu-
tiOnal principle which was the founda-
ton of the original statute of 1892, and
which has been its essence in the various
forms it has assumed since its first adap-
tion, is that the Government of the
United States possess under the consti-
tuition in full measure the power of self
protection by its own agencies altogether
independent of State authority and if
need be againt the hostility of State
it should remain embodied
in our statutes unimpaired, as it has
been from the very origin of the Govern
ment; it should be regarded as hardly
less valuable or less sacred than the pro-
vision of the constitution itself.
There are many other important stat
utes containing provisions that are liable
to be suspended or annulled at the times
and places of holding elections, if the
bill before me should become law. 1
do not undertake to furnish a list of
them. Many of them, perhaps the most
of them, have been set forth in debates
on this measure. They relate to extra
ditiOn, to crimes against election laws,
to quarantine regulations, to neutrality,
to Indian reservations, to the civil rights
of citizens, and to other subjects. In re-
gard to them all it may be safely said
that the meaning and effect of this bill is
to take from the general Government an
part of its laws to enforce the
laws.
Another grave objection to this bill is
its discrimination in favor of the State
and against the National authority. The
presence or employment of the army or
navy of the United States is lawful un-
der the terms of this bill at the place
where an election is being held in a State
to uphold the authority of State gov
ernment, then and there in need of such
intervention. Under this bill
the presence and employment of the
army or navy of the United States would
be lawful and might be necessary to
maintain the conduct of a State election
against domestic violence that would
overthrow it, but would be unlawful to
maintain the conduct of a National cleo
Jon against the same local violence that
would overthrow it. This discrimina-
lion has never been attempted in any
previous legislation by Congress, and is
40 more compatible with the sound prin-
oiples of the Constitution or necessary
naXims and methods of our system of
government on occasion of elections
Than at other times. In the early legis-
ation of 1892 and of 1895, by which the
militia of the States was the only mill
5ary power resorted to for the execution
IF the constitutional power in support of
5he State or National authority, both
functions of the government were put
upon the same footing.
By the act of 1867 the employment of
lhe army and navy was authorized for
5he performance of both constitutional
lutieS in the same terms. In all later
statutes on the same subject matter some
measure of authority to the Government
mas been accorded for the performance
IF both these duties. No precedent has
Deen found in any previous legislation,
md no sufficient reason has been given
for the discrimination in favor of the
State and against the national authority
which this bill contains. Under the
sweeping terms of the bill the National
Government is effectually shut out from
lhe exercise of her right and from the
discharge of her imperative duty to use
is whole executive power whenever and
wherever required for the enforcement
If its laws, at places and times where and
when its elections are held, the employ
nent of its organized armed forces for
my such purpose would be an offense
against the law unless called for by and
therefore upon permission of the author
ties of the State in which the occasion
arises. What is this but the substitu-
ion of the discretion of the States Gov
for the discretion of the Gov
.rnment of the United States as to the
performance of its own duties? In my
Judgment this is an abandonment of its
by the National Government
| subOrdination of national authority,
md an intrusion of State supervision
)ver National duties which amounts in
spirit and tendency to State supremacy
Although | believe that the existing
statutes are abundantly adequate to
prevent military interference
With the elections in the sense in which
he phrase is used in the title of the bill
md is employed by the people of this
country, shall find no difficulty in con-
,urring in any additional legislation
limited to that object which does not in
erfere with the Indispensable exercise
If the powers of the Government and