Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1879-06-27

"
a Reply TO Proctor Knott.
In the House of Representatives, last Fri
day, Mr.. Lapham presented minority re-
port from the Judiciary committee. This
report is in answer TO the famous manifesto
which Proctor Knott spent several weeks in
preparing, and which nobody except the
members of the committee has ever read.
Judge Lapham who wrote the minority re-
port, has since said that If he had consulted
only his own feelings and Judgment the re-
port would never have been prepared. lie
thought Mr. Knots paper musket which
would hurt nobody except those behind it /:
but it was felt that it might on the whole be
better to point out some Of the inconsistcn-
cics and misstatcmonts Of that document in
order that it might not be said that the Re
pubhcans had silently acquiesced in the views
of the majority.
THE REPORT.
The minority Of the Committee Of the Ju-
dietary having had under consideration the
message of the President disappearing Of
House bill No. 1852, entitled IAN act to
prevent military interference with elections, q"
submit the following statement of the reasons
why they cannot concur with the views Of
majority of said committee;
The repeated efforts in said report to make
1t appear that right or authority to interfere
with state elections or with the freedom and
lawful conduct Of any elections is claimed or
asserted in any quarter is hardly deserving Of
serious notice. The minority in Congress
have made no such claims. Tho right of
federal supervision contendod for applies to
congressional elections only. This is entirely
ignored in the report of the majority. Thor
report proceeds upon the false assumption
oil tl,. .,.fE 4
eral authority to supervise state 81 ctons.
No such claim is made in the message under
consideration or in any other message or ut
teiance of the President. Neither does the
message advocate or Justify military inter
ference with the freedom of elections: on
the contrary the President uses the following
language.
1t is historically true that during the re-
belllon there was such interference in cases
when factious or dominant element of dis
loyalty existed. These were necessities grow
ing ont Of the nature of the conflict and the
anomalous condition of the seeding and Dor
der states. They were in no sense acts of
craftsmanship Military orders were issued
for the purpose by officers of the army, ire
spectiye Of their political affiliations Among
the Garlic st and most notable Of such orders
was that by General Mcclellan:
WASHINGTON. Oct. - 1861.
GENERAL: There is an apprehension among
Union citizens in many parts of Maryland Of
an attempt at interference with their rights
of suffrage 10y disunion citizens on the occa-
sion of the election, TO take place on the 9th
of November next
In order to prevent this the Major. General
commanding directs that you send detach-
ments of n sufficient number Of men to the
different points in your vicinity where the
elections are to be held to protect the Union
voters and to see that no disunionists are al
lowed to intimidatc them 90 in any way to
interfere with their rights. lie also desires
you to arrest and hold in confinement until
after the election all disunonists who are
known to have returned from Virginia re-
Gently and who show themselves at the polls
and to guard eiieotUally against any invasion
of the peace and order of the election For
the purpose Of carrying ont these instructions
you are authorized to suspend the habeas
corpus. General Stone has received similar
instructions to these. You will please confer
with him as to the particular points that each
shall take the control of. | am, sir, very re-
specially, your obedicnt servant,
Il. b. MARCY, Chief of staff
Major-General n. p. Banks, Commanding Di-
vision, Muddy Branch n. j.
Before the close Of the rebellion and while
announcing the war to suppress it rs a failure,
the party now demanding this legislation Sc
lected the author Of the order above quoted
rs its candidate for the presidency. Z.
These and similar orders undoubtedly ex-
orcscd IN influence in securing the enact
ment of the law Of $50. which prohibits the
use of the army or navy ut the time and place
Of any general or special election in any state,
except it be necessary to repel the armed en-
emics of the United States or to keep the
peace at the polls, and also prohibits any
military or naval officer from prescribing the
qualifications Of voters. or IN any manner in
tcrfering with the exercise Of the free right Of
suffrage in any state. This law, with nppro-
pirate penalties for its violation. was approx
ed by President Lincoln, and since its enact
meut we do not believe there has been any
woll-grOunded cause of complaint OF military
interference with elections. No such in
stance is cited in the report Of the majority
Il refers, il is true, to the military interfer-
cnce during the rebellion, and especially in
1858. All else is mere assertion, without in
stances Of truth.
The moustrous frauds perpetrated in the
state of Now York in the year 1865 became
the subject OF u congressional inye siigation
at the ensuing session of Congress, and were
followed by a report suggesting national leg
ielAtiOn to guard against the recurrence OF
such frauds in the future election of members
OF the House Of Representatives,. The act Of
$50, entitled AN act to enforce the right Of
citizcns of the United States to vote in the
several States Of this Union, and for other
purposes was to considerable extent the
outgrowth Of such investigations The en-
forcemcnt Of the provisions of this act. as
amended in 1871, has had a most wholesome
tendency 10 secure free and honest elections
Ia 1 4 4
of 1876, Us intensely exciting as any in our
history, its enforcement purged the canvass
of all successful attempts at fraud in the same
city where outrages upon the ballot-box and
in counting the votes ran riot in the canvass
of 1868.
After weary months Of failure to accomplish
its repeal the design is now apparent in some
way to thwart its execution and open wide
the door for exclusive state supervision in all
elections. The present is not a propitious
time to attempt interference with its opera
ton. No effort is 10 be spared to render it
imperative. The gravity of the situation is
n sufficient warning for the exercise of the
utmost caution. When it is more than init
mated that the execution of this law is to be
forcibly resisted in the next national contest
unless it is in the meantime repealed, we can
not give our consent to weaken or embarrass
in any respect the power of civil officers of
the United States to enforce its provisions.
1t is to remain the law of the land All eff
forts for its repeal have been for the present
abandoned. 1t is the constitutional duty of
the President to see that il is faithfully exc
cutcd. Many of its provisions are applicable
to and only to be enforced ON the day an
election is held. Why should the authority
to use all lawful and constitutional means to
execute it be suspended or crippled on that
day: The laws should be enforced
and executed on all days and at all times and
places To abdicate the authority of the
government Of the United States to execute
its laws on the day of an election would be
fatal mistake and constitute precedent of
the most dangerous character.
The reasoning of the report of the majority
eliminates at last in the unconditional avowal
that all elections are state elections, and that
no law of Congress can control or interfere
with the officers Of the state at any election
unless the state authorities invoke the aid of
the general government, as provided in the
constitution This is asserting the pernicious