The daily gazette., 1879-05-15
From the N. Y. World.
why the Veto Means Grant.

1t will be seen from the extracts which
we elsewhere make from conservative
Republican, Democratic and independ-
ent jour aals all over the country that
sensible men Of all parties agree in re-
garding Mr.. Hayes's second message as
thoroughly partisan document. 1t sim
ply fOrniulates the views of the Congress
sional Republican caucus almost in the
very language used by Senator Edmunds
in bis last speech in the Senate. As q
partisan document it Is interesting be-
shifted their ground. In this lest veto
nothing issaid of the duty of tho Federal
Executive to maintain the peace Of q
State" That bit of Imperialism has been
abandoned. The plea and the only plea
which the Republicans now venture TO
submit to the test Of type IL that the Sec
ond bill possibly may somewhere a. some
time during the few voting hours of an
election day prevent the President from
using the army to aid marshal to exc
cute q Federal law unless tho State
where the law IL to be executed asks for
such aid.
This plea isshalIow and intended to
mislead. The hackers of Grant, whose
agent Mr.. Hayes has now made himself
al d to whom he has surrendered the use
Of veto power, distinctly intend to order
troops into certain selected CODgression-
al districts while the election canvass Is
going on and long before q voting day
arrives. Grant did this in 1876 under the
advice of raft ss Attorney -Generl and
on the behest both OF "upsy Chandler"
as the ret kless chairman and of "sober
Chandler" ss the astute manager Of the
Hayes campaign. There WIS no pre-
tense, then, that lawful precept in the
hands of any marshal was resisted. Mr..
Hayes knows, Mr.. Evarts knows aud all
the Republican leaders know that what
Congress seeks to prevant is any use of
tayonets in this way again. Mr.. Hayes
himself In this second veto says:
"The true rule as to the employment
of military force at the elections Is not
doubtful No coercion should be allowed
to control or influence citi zens in the ex-
ercise of their right to vote, whether 1t
appears in the shape Of combination
OF evil-disposed persons, or Of armed
bodies of the militia of o State, or Of the
military force Of the United States. The
elections should be free from all forcible
interference and, as far az praati cable,
from all apprehe nsion of such interfer-
ence. No soldiers, either of the Union
or Of the State militia, should he present
1T the polls to te We the plac cor to per
form the duties Of the ordinary civil pO-
ice."
Now precisely this and no more than
this does the vetoed bill prevent. Mr..
Hayes pledged himself that If he Is alive
and in Office In 1870 he will prevent this.
But suppose he should not be alive? Sup
pose Mr.. Wheeler President? Or sup
pose the stalwarts insist that Mr.. Hayes
shall turn his back on this pledge? Is tins
personal government or government
of principles ? Such a tremendous power
must not be left TO the discretion OF any
President. No true constitutional Demo-
crat would leave 1t in the hands Of Mr..
Bayard, or Mr.. Thurman, or Mr. Hen
bricks, or Mr.. Tilden, or General Han
cock.
The partisan venom and the Grantism
of this second message leap clearly to
light in the latter part of it., In which an
utter distrust OF the State as independ-
ent political bodies and of the people of
those States unmistakably appears. This
part of the message reveals q purpose
and an intent to use the army as usual
means of administration. This revela-
toni is which makes the message dis.
tinctly and fatally premonition of the
revival of Grantism and OF the coming
candidacy of Grant. 1t displays another
hand from that which wrote the first
message. What was in the mind of the
writer is plainly Swallowed forth by the
absurd aud irrelevant illusions to the
Pennsylvania whiskey rebellion, TO the
reasonable enterprise Of Aaron Burr
which involved an attack on friendly
nation, to South Carolina tariff MULTI
cation in 1888, and to the late civil war.
What have any Of these to do with free
electioRs? Why are these events dug
up and brought forward unless to revive
the passions OF S;ao civil war and to usher
in and give momentum 10 the cry for
Grant.
Such language as is used In the foil W.
ing extract from the veto might be par
dOnahle in a stump speech, but 1t is alb
solutely indecent in grave stat, paper
emanatinR from the official head of .
great nation:
"Annther grave objection TO- the 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 b Ii in q
State, to uphold the authority of q State
government then and there in need of
such military intervention, but nnlaw-
full to uphold the authority Of the Gov
ernment of the United States then and
there in need ofsuch military iinterveu-
ton. Under this bill the presence und
Omplcymeut of the army or navy of the