The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-06-19
g8EtsreIlmrOms.
THE VETO MESSAGES,
ABsTRACT OF THE REPORT OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IneOnalStepeles in the ReaSOna Hayes Assigns for
Hls COurae Pointed Out. Ablo Answers to all
che Objections Made BY the President.
The Course Of Congress on the Mea-
suFeS Reviewed and Endorsed.

begins with an alusion to the danger to
be apprehended from the presence OF
armed troops at the ballot box, and says
even the author Of the message under
consideration himself admits that any
military interference whatever at the
polls is contrary to the spirit Of our in
Btitutions and would tend to dastroy the
freedom Of elections. The present Con-
gress, in the exercise of its undoubted
right to prescribe the purposes for which
the land and naval forces of the govern
ment shall be used, saw proper in max
ing appropriations for the support Of the
army to enact that 1t should not only be
clearly unlawful but penal offence for
any Federal official TO employ troops or
armed men at State elections for any
purpose whatever, except to repel armed
enemies of the United States. That bill
the President to the House of Repre-
sentatives without his signature. His
reasons for ohjeCting to the bill seem to
have been these:
FIrst, That. in his judgment, the repeal
Of the clause in question was unneces.
sary,
Second, That because it would prohibit
all civil officers Of the United States
from employing any adequate civil force
to enable them to preserve peace, and
execute certain laws at Congressional
elections and
Third, Because tie manner in which
the repeal has been proposed did not
happen in particular instance to be in
harmony with Executive taste, and was
therefore considered by the author of
the message as furnishing a suitable oc.
Casion to deliver to the House OF Repre-.
sentatives a gratuitous lecture upon the
methods in which it should discharge
1t constitutional functions.
As the President has twice called the
attention Of the House to these obiec-
tions, the first two may be referred to
hereafter. But with regard tO the third,
it perhaps is sufficient to say that the
manner in which Congress chose to re.
peal the clause in question was not only
in strict conformity to the constitution
and rules of the two Houses respectively,
but was justified by numerous prece-
dents in the annals Of federal legisla
ton.
Impressed with the importance of re-.
moving the last shadow of a pretext for
any Interference whatever with State
elections by armed forces Of the United
States, and desiring to ohviate, if pos
sible. the Presidents objections to the
measure already proposed for that pur-
pose, 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 to or employ, at
any place where general election is
being held in any State, any part of the
army or navy, unless GuCh forces should
be necessary TO repel armed enemies of
the United States, or to enforce section A.
article 4, of the Constitution, and the
laws made in pursuance thereof, and re.
pealing all provisions inconsistent there
with. This bill was speedily returned
with message from the President, as.
signing his objections to its approval,
which are now TO be considered.
The first Of these objections is simple
repetition OF the one assigned in the
message vetoing the Army Appropria.
ton bill. No one can read the two mes
sages together without being struck by
marked difference in tone of the two
documents in respect to this objection.
Mr.. Knott points out the difference be-
tween the two messages and continues ::
The entire argument against the neces-
sity 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 asser-
tiOn was no doubt sincere, but unfortu-
nately for its validity Gs q reason Tor re-
fusing to approve bill designed for the
protection Of future generations as we'll
as this. The official term for the present
Executive is limited, and he may be
succeed by one who will fees a less scrup-
lous regard for the freedom and purity Of
the ballot than he processes himself to
entertain.
The next objection to approval of the
bill, as alleged in the message. is that 1t
would abrogate, on certain days and
certain places, a number Of laws, but es.
pecially section g. 29S, Revised Statutes,
which is reverently referred to as . an
ancient and ndfandaMental law" which has
been In force since the foundation of the
Government, and seems to be regarded
by the Hreeident as invested with some
peculioF sanCity not pertaining to any
other provision in the entire system Of
American Jurisprudence. He enlarges
upon the statement that this section was
sanctioned substantially by Washington,
Jefferson, and Lincoln, and contains the
principle which was acted upon by the
four Presidents more endeaTed to the
American people than any others at the
most critical periods in their respective
administrations II he had exomined
the facts connected with the transactions
to which he alludes, he would have
found that neither Of the four illustrioua
patriots and statesmen to whom he re-.
fers. did or proposed to do any.
thing which would not not have been
perfectly lawful under the stfictest letter
Of the bilF here returned to the House.
Had 1t fbeen9 10 force at the timel he
would have discovered, moreover, that
neither Of them ever construed either OF
the acts cited by him as comforting upon
the President or any of his subordinates
any arbitrary or extra legal pOWers but
merely as authorizing the use OF neces
Bafy means for securing the execution Of
the law In regular methods and through
agencies prescribed by law.
1nsupport ofthis assertion, Knott re-
fefs to the action Of Washington in the
Whiaky Toanrraot;nnas of Iaffaraon In