Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-06-21
SOLDIERS AT THE POLLS.
Associated Press Report.l

Mr.. KNorr's REPORT ON HAYES VETO.
WAsHINGroN, June ll.-At u meeting Of the
house judiciary to-day Chairman
Knott submitted his report on the message OF
the president vetoing the bill to prevent military
interference with elections. After the reading
of the document u discussion arose during
which republican members gave assurance tnat
they would not object to the presentation oil the
report to the house for the purpose OF having 1t
printed and re-c"mmitted the Idea OF desiring
this procedure being to afford the minority an
opportunity to prepare Il statement embracing
their views upon the veto IN question.
MIR. knott's report begins with an alluslon 10
the danger to be unprecedented 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 Oh
our Institutions, and would tend to destroy Tree
dom of elections.
Mr.. Knott points out the difference between
the two messages and continues: The entire ar
gunent against the necessity of the bill is lett to
rest upon the presidents reiterated assertion
that troops have not been and will not be used
to interfere with any state election during nis
ADMINISTRATION. That assertion was no douDt
sincere, but unfortunately for its validity as
reason Tor refusing to approve u bill designed
Tor me protection of future generations rs wen
as this, the official term of the present executive
Is limited and he may be succeeded by one VINO
Will feel u less scrupulOus regard Tor the ireeuom
and security of the ballot than he processes MIN
self to entertain. The next objection to the APP,
proval of the bill us alleged in the Message"
that 1t would abrogate on certain days and IN
certain places u number of laws, but especially
oCS'lOh ItFlocu StutuIVSs "hitii 40 '
emily referred to as IAN ancient and iundamen-
tai law which has been in force from the foun-
aation Of the government, ana seems 10 o some me
peculiar sanctity nor pertaining to any other
provision in the entire system OF American Ju-
risprudence. He enlarges upon the statement
that this section was sanctioned substantially
by Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, anu
contains the principle which was acted upon ny
the four presidents more endeared to the Amerl-
can people than all others at the most critical
periods in their respective administrations. III
he had examined the facts connected with the
transactions to which he alludes he would have
found that neither OF the three illustrious patriots
and statesmen to whom he refers either did or
proposed 10 do any thing 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.
either of the acts cited by HIM as conferrlng up
on the president, or any OF his subordinates any
arbitrary OF extra legal power, but merely ely as
curing the execution of the law in regular
methods and through agencies prescribed by
law.
In support of his assertion Mr.. Knott refers to
the action of Washington in the whisky lnsur-
%rection, of Jefferson in the Aaron Burr case, OF
Jackson in 1882, and Lincoln ut the outbreak Of
the civil war, and adds: Owing perhaps to the
limited time he allowed himself in which to pre-
pare his message the president failed to observe
the fact that various statutes to which he refers,
section 5, 29S. are us completely abro-
gated or suspended by the act approved by
President Lincoln on the 9th of February, 1865.
as they possibly could be BY the bill to prevent
military interference with elections had he re
turned it to the house with his approval. He
proved by Lincoln on the 9th Of February,
1855, making it a high in him or
other officers of the United States to employ
armed men at u state election, except for two
specified purposes was still in force, and that it
was US much his duty under his official oath, to
see that it was faithfully executed, as any other
provision in the statutes.
The report afirms that power to establish
police regulations, such as may be necessary for
vention of violence and crime. affecting life or
property. within their respective llmlts, belongs
exclusively to the states, and the federal govern
meDt Can only intervene to protect the state in
the execution of its own laws for that purpose
upon application of the legislature or governors.
when the legislature cannot be convened. Su.
preme court decisions are quoted In support OF
this position, and the following extract from a
letter of the present secretary OF state while
sent by him to the marshal Of Florida on the 10Th
ofAugust, 1858: 1.-THE special duty and author
ity In execution of process issued to you must
not be COMPOUNDED with the duty and authority
OF suppressing disorder and preserving the
peace, which under our government belongs to
civil authorities Of the states, and not to civil
The report continues: To prevent the substi-
tuition OF the discretion of petty superserviceable
federal officials for law, the soldier with MA
and other dangerous abuses to which recent ex-
perience OF our country has shown it to be
i liable nn, was sd the sole OF , SSjs Iih and IN n Wevl1 have mil, sesn
eNS VS. 49,
interference ut the polls which the president
found it impossible to approve. The third and
final objection offered by the president to the
bill is. to use his own language. Its dlscrim-
nation in favor OF state and against the ma
tiOnal authority" Under the constitution Of
the federal government, has not and no law of
congress can give it authority to preserve peace
In a state either at the polls or elsewhere I'M
less called upon by proper state authorities for
that purpose under circumstances for which the
constitution has provided. How, therefore,
there could possibly be a discrimination
against an authority that does not and cannot
exist, it is difficult to see. 1t is equally i'm
possible to discover how u distinct reservation
Of power Of the president to suppress an insur-
rection against the government OF a state at
any time or place when properly called upon
can be said to derogate from the authority of
the CHlted States.
There is a single consideration sufficient in
itself to show that fears expressed by the presi-
dent that the bill would subordinate national
to state authority were totally unfounded, but
which seems, singularly enough, to have es-
capped his observation. Under the law as 1t
now stands, and has stood since 1875, the pres
ident ia not bound to call for the militia or to
employ the land or naval forces of the United
States to suppreas every riot or popular tumult
In u state. although called upon by the Irgis-
latlvc or executive Tor that purpose. Ii the
president should have reason to believe that
lorce was not called for in good faith to sup
press an insurrection against the government
Of the state, but to be used tor any purpose in
any manner inImicai to the United Suites i,
would not only be his right. but his duty to
withhold il,