The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1879-05-03
THE VETO.


Appropriation bill, because Congress in
granting money for the support of the army
has provided that the troops shall not be
used at elections. The provision which is
thus vetoed is wise, necessary, indispensable,
aud cannot safely be abandoned. II should
be insisted upon. For Congress to retreat
from the position which it has assumed,
would be foolish, unpatriotic, ridiculous,
and probably fatal to those responsible for
the retreat. 1t is vain in this country for
the minority to attempt to rule the majority.
The many cannot be coerced by the few.
The very foundation Of the government is
laid for a different structu Q the minds
of the people have been educated to differ
ent standard. A man holding the Presi-
dental authority without the consent of the
majority Of the people, may offer a veto;
but the proper reply to it is to re-enact the
lawsto which he objects, and TO adjourn,
leaving him to face the responsibility of dis
banding the army and disorganizing the
public service, il he chooses SO TO do because
the majority of Congress grant appro-
priations on terms different from those he
would dictate. This emergency seems like
ly to form new crisis in the development
and application of the Constitution. No
honest believer in popular government
should be found doing anything in the way
of terminating this crisis otherwise than in
favor of the great republican doctrine, that
the majority must rule.
The Philadelphia Ledger of Wednesday,
commenting on the message accompanying
the veto; says:
rather unevenly balanced document is
that sent 10 the House of Representatives
Tuesday, giving the Presidents reasons for
his veto of the Army bill. 1t would have
had far more force if it had omitted three
f'urths ofits contents. The first,half, besides
being very faulty in its reasoning, is entire
ly unnecessary to the making out of his
case, and one-half of the remainder rather
weakens the fourth and concluding part,
which is quite strong and directed TO the
main point. The message recites number
of sections of the Revised Statutes which
are intended 10 prevent military interier-
ence at elections, and arguing that these are
quite sufficient in that direction, iniers that
there is, therefore, no necessity for the fur
ther prevention contained in the sixth Sec
tiOn of the Army bill. But few disciplined
minds will be able TO perceive any force in
that logic. Every precaution within the
limits of the Constitution should be pro-
vided against army interference with cleo
tions, and the fact that some such are pro-
vided is no argument why others should
not be, if the unguarded points present OPEN
tam.
tisans, either in the army offices or the Exc
cutive department of the Government, in
times OF high political excitement. The
logical inference is just in the opposite direc-
ton to that taken by the President, for moth
ing is more repugnant 10 the instincts Of the
American people than the Intervention of
the military arm of the Government at cleo
tion times. Hence all that portion of the
message could have been left out greatly to
the advantage OF the rest.
There are two other elements Of weakness
in this part of the message. When the
President SAYS it may, therefore upon the
premises above mentioned), be confidently
stated there is no necessity for the enact
ment ofthe sixth section OF the BILL he only
expresses an unsupported opinion, which,
being unsupported; could have no weight
even upon Congress willing to listen to
reason. Furthermore, it leads him into an
argument in favor of the policy of retain
ing the clause permitting the use Of troops
at the polls-an argument that commits
him against the repeal of that portion OF
the law, whether it comes to him in the
form of ali amendment to an appropriation
bill or as an independent measure. This is
fatal error of policy, that puts him at
cross purposes with that influential and able
section Of the Republican membership in
Congress who had already expressed their
willingness TO favor the repeal, if presented
in separate act. He gives his opponents
a great advantage here, one that will enable
them to neutralize the effect of that part o
the message in which he puts the real OBJ
jectons on tenable ground.
What is really forcible in the message il
contained IN two compact passages. Tht
first is in these words; " 1t is the right anC
duty OF the National Government TO enac
and enforce laws which will secure free ant
fair Congressional elections, The laws nov
in force should not be repealed except il
conjunction with the enactment of measure
which will better accomplish that import
ant end. Believing that section of tn
bill will weaken it it does not altogethe
take away the power of the National Gov
ernment To protect the Federal elections b,
the civil authorities, am forced to tho con
olusions that il ought not to receive my ap
proval. This is, however, not presented /
me as a separate and independent measure
but is,as has been stated, attached to the bill
making the usual annual appropriations 70
the support of the army. 1t makes a vita
change in the election laws of the country
which is in no way connected with the us
OF the army. 1t prohibits, under heav
penalties, any person engaged in the civi
service of the United states from havn
any force at the place of any election to pre-
serve orler, to make arrests, to keep tn
peace, or in any manner 10 enforce the lawi
This is altogether foreign to the purpose {
an army appropriation bill"
This would have been quite sufficient fo
the purposes Of the veto, with the al iitip
OF a few sentences showing that the practc
OF inserting important changes in the law
in appropriation bills indispens bile TO tn
support Of the operations Of the Governmen
which no Executive can feel at full libert
TO refuse 10 sign, limits and embarrasses tn
freedom Of the President in his constitution
al duty TO disapprove Objectionable meas
ures OF legislation. To that extent his az
tion must be coerced; and in that lies tn
vital objection TO such methods Of Legislation
The arguments on this point occupies tn
concluding portion OF the message, and it
stated with considerable force. But eve
this strong as 1t is, will hardly receive tn
considera ration it is entitled to now, becaus
of the faulty reasoning which precedes it i
the unnecessary portion Of the message a
ready pointed out, and because of the add
tional lac. that the President, in order
bring it into the message, resorts to the ratl
or unnecessary and unusual expedent
quoting from speeches of members of Cor
gress. Altogether, a case that was quite
strong one as put in the passage we ha,
quoted, with It's suggested brief addendun
has been rather inadequately handled, an
the advantage has been given to the opp
site side.
The Rev. Bishon Edward Ravn,or