Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-05-14
THE VETOED BILL.

II might be inferred from perusal OF
the last veto message that the Demo
Gratis had devised measure that assert
Ell and was intended to maintain that
any presence Of troops at the polls, for
any purpose, lawful or unlawful, should
be prohibited.
1t would naturally be supposed thata
message of two columns in length, Veto
ing a bill OF about ten lines, would have
at least referred to it in a manner that
would give a comprehensive view OF its
provisions, il it did not quote it in full.
But the message deals with the bill-as
BEEcuER would say-'like cat with
wasp. not knowing whether to attack 1t
from behind or before" and leaves 1t to
be inferred, without citing its proyls-
ions, that il is a bold and reasonable
stroke at the CONSTITUTIONAL rerogatives
of the Executive.
But the fact is that there has been
no allegation from any source that the
bill was in any sense, in conflict with
the Constitution. Ii, under the Con-
stitution there is any authority for the
presence of troops at the polls, that
authority would remain intact, not
withstanding the bill. Ii the President
possesses any authority over the
United States troops, that authority is
certainly derived from the Constitution,
and would remain intact nOtwithstand-
ing the bill. 1t was law OF Congress
and not the Constitution at which the
bill was aimed.
Whatever degree of interference by
military power was thought necessary
bv the trainers of the Constitution for
keeping the peace at the polls was not
disturbed, or sought to be, by the bill.
Even Mr.. EDNUNDs admitted that the
bin declares that troops may be pres
ent at the polls and on election days in
the manner and under the circum-
stances contemplated by the COnstitu-
ton" No other construction could
possibly be put upon the bill. 1t dis
tinctly authorizes the employment Of
troops at the polls in the following cases:
l. When necessary to rePel armed
enemies of the United States.
>. When necessary to enforce section
4, article 4, of the Constitution.
3. When necessary TO the execution
of a law made to guarantee republican
form OF government.
4. When called for by the State to pro-
teCt it against domestic violence
II then, the vetoed bill admits that
troops NAV be employed at the polls
under the conditions and circumstances
contemplated by the Constitution, 1t is
evidently not unconstitutional. Ii it
does not prohibit the employment OF
military force, when authorized by the
Constitution, to support aud protect the
civil authority in executing the election
law, then il is not a bill 10 curtail the
executive power (which Congress has
no power to do and there was no other
valid reason beside, for the exercise OF
the veto power. There was no other
reason, except that 4 partisan measure,
passed by a partisan Congress, for pure
lv partisan ends, should be retained Tor
the purpose Of enabling a usurper OF the
presidency to name his successor and
follow it up with the military command,
present arms.' There was no other
reason than that the Republican party
are not willing to trust their chances
for the next presidency to an election
under, through and by the authorities
and methods prescribed by the Consti-
tuition under which we live.
The country tlourished and had free
and honest elections says the Pitts
burgh Post, " from the organization ofthe
Government down to 1865, without the
law authorizing troVps at the polls "to
preserve the peace" 1t is only since
this law was enacted that the military
have controlled elections and came near,
as in New York in 1870, inaugurating a
bloody conflict in the streets OF great
city. In the early history OF the cOun-
try, which HAYES cites TO justify his ac-
ton, wise and patriotic Presidents en-
forced the laws without the aid of the
boyonet election law OF 1886. 1t has
only been an instrument OF evil
and oppression; it was procured for
partisan purposes, and has within it the
possibilities OF civil war; not in the
South, but at the North. No avail.
able part of the army will be able to
maintain DAVENPORT, two years hence,
in the commission OF the outrageS and
brutalities on the citizen and the right
of suffrage, that distinguished his uSur-
pations last fall in New York city. The
Presidency will then be at issue. Ii is
for use then and there that HAYES pre-
serves the bayonet election law. He de-
SireS to do for GRANT or SHERMAN what
GRANT did for him in 1876, under this
law.
THE MARCH OF THE MOFFETT-