The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1879-04-05

members OF Congress, Is the repeal OF a
clause in an act which allows the Federal
troops to be used at the polls on election
days, The law in question was pre-
presented to Congress by Senator Powell
in 1864, and was designed to limit the
President in the use Of troops, over whom
for three years he had had absolute con-
troll. This extraordinary power, it was
claimed, was demanded BY the extraordi-
nary exigenees Of the times, The war not
being over, an adverse report was made
upon Senator Powell's bill, but in June of
the same year he again called il up. The
essential point of the bill was as follows !:
That it shall not be lawful for any military
or naval officer of the United States, or other
person engaged in the civil, military or naval
service of the United States, TO order, bring,
keep or have under his authority or control
any troops or armed men within one mile of
the place where any general or special cleo
ton is held in any State Of the United States
of America, unless it shall be necessary TO
repel the armed enemies of the United States.
Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, proposed
as an amendment, the words "or to keep
the peace at the polls Senator Powell
objected to the amendment, and such stur-
dy Republicans as Henry Wilson and John
P. Hale voted againstit The Democrats,
finding that to accept the bill with the
amendment, was the best they could OBJ
tain in bringing the powers of the Prcsi-
dent within the limits Of the constitutional
safeguards, voted for it. It passed the
Senate, aided BY the votes Of seven Repub-
cans, by vote Of 10 to 10, and received
the sanction of the House at the next
session. President Lincoln approved it
the 18th Of February, 1865.
The amendmeut--@o to keep the peace
at the polls has furnished the authority,
under manufactured prctexts, for the Re
publican party to override the will Of the
people, by intimidating them with Federal
bayonets. It is notorious that for years
the elections in the Southern States were
controlled by the presence Of Federal sol
diers 1t has only been since the ioaugu-
ration Of Hayes that the troops have been
removed from the South, aud the removal
was only consequent upon the bargain by
which Hayes was given the votes of sew
eral Southern States
The Republican party, on account Of
its corruption and unlawful practices, has
been repudiated by the country, aud to re.
gain power, with President Cd Jaeto) of
their own choice in the White House, it
is not unlikely they would use the army to
further their aims, if il were necessary, in
the election of 1850. The authority to do
so IS upon the statute books, and the pre-
texts for the use Of troops would not be
wanting, if their necessities required it.
But, apart from this view Of the question,
the law is contrary to the letter and spirit
of the constitution, and should berepcaled.
Even mcnarehical England is not permit
ed to station troops within two miles Of
voting places on election days All writ
ers ppou election laws hold that the mere
presence Of troops ut the polls Is p-esump-
tive evidence that the election Is not a
free and fair expression Of the win of the
people Experience, too, has proved that
it is dangerous to give any officer absolute
control Of IN army helimi,s ofthe uses
of the army was wise provision of our
forefaihcrs, and without such safeguards,
the army, in the hands of designing aud
ambitious President or commanding Off
Ger, might be made an engine Of oppres-
sion and tyrrany.
The controversy on the repeal of the
clause permitting the presence Of troops at
the polls, was sprung by the Republicans,
because, II is claimed, the Democrats pro-
pose TO repeal it by an amendment to the
army appropriation bin. This they char
acterize as revolutionary, but il is only
Pretezt They are opposed to repeal.
If not, why stand upon the manner Of it,
sineethey themselves inaugarated the prac-
tice which the Democrats propose to fol-
low.
Il is proper that bills before Congress
should not be burdened by amendments
not germane, although the Constitution
does not contain liuo or syllable directly
or BY implication prohibiting such prac.
tees. We think il is porfcctly admissible
that the army appropriation bin should
contain clause limiting the uses Of the
army to its legitimate purposes. Such an
amendment would be in the interest Of
good government end econony-good gov
ernment, because it keeps the army within
the constitutional limits; economy, because
it prohibits the army from being used for
other purposes ibap prescribed BY the con
stitution, thereby saving unnecessary cx-
penses 10 transportation, &c.