The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1879-05-01
Veto Of the Army Bill.

Veto Of The Army Bill.
On the Goth the President returned the
Army Bill to the House of Representatives,
where it originated, with his objections.
The following is a synopsis Of the veto
The Army Appropriation bill was..return-
ed to-day to the House without the Presi-
dents signature, accompanied by a message
stating at length the reasons for the veto.
The President says ii the bill contained no
other provisions than those for the support
OF the army it would secure his prompt ap-
proval, but it includes further legislation
and involves questions of the gravest charac-
ter. He recites statutes now in force en-
bodied in sections POOP and 552S, Revised
Statutes, and say S the adoption of the propos.
ed amendments may be considered in two
aspects: First, as it affects the right of the
United States Government to use military
force to keep peace at elections; second, as
it affects the right Of the Government BY civ
il authority to protect elections from violence
and fraud. He then quotes and calls atten-
ton to sections 2003, 1929, $3.50, 5531 and
1892 of the Revised Statutes, section Is of
the Army Appropriation bill, passed June
Is, 1878, together with remarks upon their
purpose and effect later, as stated in speech
es of senators and representatives who sup.
ported it. sF'rom these laws, he says. it ap-
pears there can be no military interference
with elections, and that consequently there
is no necessity for enactment of section OF
this bill. He then calls attention to existing
laws for the prevention of Determinations on
account OF race. color, or previous condition
of servitude, and to prevent fraud, violence,
and intimidation at Federal elections, and
says: sThese laws it is the duty of the Ey-
ecutlve department OF the Government to
enforce. The intent and effect OF the sixth
section Of this bill is to prohibit all civil off,
GERS of the United States under penalty of
fine and imprisonment, from employing any
adequate civil force for this purpose at the
places where their enforcement is most ne
cessary-namely, at places where congress
ional elections are held. If the proposed
legislation should become law, there will
be no power vested in any officer OF the Gov
eminent to protect from violence officers of
the United States engaged in the discharge
of their duties Their rights and duties un-
der the law will remain, but the National
Government will be powerless to enforce its
own statutes. States may employ both mil.
itary and civil power to keep peace and to
enforce laws at State elections. 1t is now
proposed to deny the United States even the
necessary civil authority to protect national
elections. No sufficient reason has been Civ
en- for this discrimination in favor OF State
and against national authority With re-
gard to the manner in which it is sought to
repeal the law authorizing the use of troops
at the polls, he says: 'The object aimed at
is altogether foreign to the purpose of an
army appropriation bill. The practice of
lacking to appropriation bills measures not
pertinent to such bills did not prevail until
more than forty years after the adoption of
the Constitution. 1t has become common
practice. All parties when in power have
adopted it, and many abuses and great waste
of public money have IN this way crept into
appropriation bills. Public opinion of this
country is against it. States which have re-
Gently adopted constitutions have provided a
remedy for the evil by enacting that no law
shall contain more than one subject, which
shall be plainly expressed in its title. Con-
situations Of more than half Of the States
contain substantially this provision. Public
welfare will be promoted in many ways by
the return to the early practice OF the Gov
eminent and to the true principle of legis-
lation, which requires that every measure
shall stand or fall according to its own mer-
its.'' He says:
time to pass appropriation bills, and also to
enact any practical measures which may be
determined upon in separate bills by the u.s.
ual and orderly methods of proceedings, but
majority OF both houses have deemed it wise
to adhere to the principle maintained in the
last Congress by majority Of the House of
Representatives, namely that the House of
Representatives has the sole right to origi-
nate bills for raising revenue, and therefore
has the right to withhold appropriations up
on which the existence Of the Government
may depend, unless the Senate and the Press
ident shall give their assent to any legisla-
ton which the House may see fit to attach
toappropriation bills. To establish this prn-
ciple is to make radical, dangerous and IN
constitutional changes in the character of
our institutions. That majority Of the SEN
ate now concurs in the claim of the House
adds to the gravity OF the situation, but does
not alter the question at issue. The new
doctrine, if maintained, will result in the
consolidation of unchecked and despotic
power in the House of Representatives. A
bare majority will no longer be what the
trainers of the Constitution intended-an
equal and independent branch of the Gov
eminent. The principle of this bill places
not merely the Senate and the Executive,
but the judiciary also under the coercive die
tation of the House; the House alone will
be judge OF what constitutes a grievance.
and also of the means and measure OF redress.
An act OF Congress to protect elections is
now the grievance complained of, but the
House may, on the same principle, deter
mice that treaty made by the President
with the advice and consent OF the Senate,
nomination or appointment to offices, OF
decision or opinion Of the Supreme Court, is
a grievance, and that the measure of redress
is to withhold appropriations required for
the support of the offending branch of the
Government.
believing that this bill is a dangerous
violation of the spirit and meaning of the
Constitution, l am compelled to return it to
the House in which it originated without
my approval"