Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-06-13


tatives gratuitous lecture upon the methods
in which it should discharge it's constitutional
functions.
As the President has twice called the atten-
ton of the House to these objections, the first
two may be referred to hereafter, but with re-
gard to the third, it is perhaps sufficient to say
that the manner in which Congress chose to
repeal the clause in question was not only in
strict conformity to the constitution and rules
of the two houses respectively, but justified by
numerous presidents in the annals of federal
legislation.
the last shadow of pretext for any interfer-
ence whatever with State elections by the
armed forces of the United States, and de-
string to obviate, if possible, the Presidents
objections to the measure already proposed for
the purpose, the House of Representatives
promptly passed a separate bill which was as
promptly concurred in by the Senate, simply
providing that it should not be lawful to bring
or employ at any place where general or
special election is being held, in any State, any
part of the army or navy, unless such forces
should be necessary to repel armed enemies of
the United States, or to enforce section Of the
constitution aud the laws made in pursuance
thereof, and repeating all provisions inconsist-
emit with the purposes of the bill. This bill
was speedily returned, with q message from the
President assigning his objections to It's ap-
proval, which are now to be considered.
The first of these objections is simple repe-
tition of the one assigned in the message veto
ing the army appropriation bill. No one can
read the two messages together without being
struck by the marked difference in the tone of
the two documents. In respect to this objec-
ton Mr.. Knott points out the difference be-
tween the two messages, and continues: The en-
tire argument against the necessity of the bill
is left to rest upon the Presidents reiterated
assertion that troops have not been and will
not be used to interfere with any State election
during his administration. That assertion was,
no doubt, sincere but, unfortunately for it's
validity reason for refusing to approve
bill designed for the protection of future gen
eratiOns as we'll as this. the official term
of the present executive,is limited, and he may
be succeeded by one who will feel a less scrupus
lous regard for freedom and purity of ballot
than he processes himself to entertain.
The next objection to the approval of the bill,
as alleged in the message, is that it would abro.
gate on certain days and certain places,
number Of laws, but especially section 5,298 of
the revised statutes, which is reverently re-
ferred to as an ancient and fundamental
law, which has been in force from the founda-
ton of the government, and seems to be re-
garded by the President as invested with some
peculiar sanctity, not pertaining to any other
provision in the entire system of American
jurisprudence. He enlargcs upon the state:
ment that this section was sanctioned sub
stantially by Washington, Jefferson and Lin
coin, and contains the principle which was act
ed on by the four Presidents more endeared to
the American people thanall Others at the most
critical periods in their respective administers
tions. IF he had examined facts connected with
the transactions to which he alludes he would
have found that neither of the four illustrious
patriots and statesmen to whom he refers
either did or proposed to do anything which
would not have been perfectly lawful under
| the strictest letter of the bill he returned to
the House had it been in force at the time. he
would have discovered, moreover, that neither
of them even construed either of the acts
cited by him as comforting upon the President
| or any of his subordinates any authority or
extra legal powers, but merely as authorizing
the use of necessary means for securing the
execution of the law in regular methods and
| through the agencies prescribed by law.
| In support of his assertion Knott refers to
the action of Washington in the whisky insur-
rection; of Jefferson in the Aaron Burr case;
break of the civil war, and adds: Owing
perhaps to the limited time. he allowed
himself in which to prepare his message, the
President failed to observe the fact that the
various statutes to which he refers, including
section 5, 1893, are as completely abrogated or
Lincoln on the 9th of February, 1865, as they
possibly could be by the bill to prevent mill
tary interference with elections, had he re-
turned it to the House with his approval. He
seems to have totally forgotten that the law ap-
proved by Lincoln on the 9th of February,
1866, making it a misdemeanor in him or other
officers of the United States to employ armed
| men at State elections, except for two specified
purposes, was still in force and that it was az
much his duty under his official oath to see
that it should be faithfully executed as any
other provision IN the statutes
The report affirms that power to establish po-
lice regulations, which may be neces.
| sary for the preservation of domestic
order and prevention of violence and
crime affecting life or property within
I their respective limits. belong exclusively to
the States and the federal government, which
can only intervene to protect State in the ex-
ecution of it's own laws for that purpose upon
| the application of the legislature or the Gov
ernor, where the legislature caunot be conven-
ed. Supreme court decisions are quoted in
support of this position, and following is an
extract from letter of the present secretary of