The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1879-05-16
Troops at the Polls.

President Hayes has made his peace with
the stalwart or ultra faction of the Republ-
can party, by vetoing the bill ITO prevent
military interference at elections" In doing
this the President has acted in opposition to
the patriotic sentiment Of a majority of the
people of the country, but the bill can not be
passed over his veto and the principle at
stake will therefore come before the people at
the next Presidential election. 1t is not an
obscure political theory, but is concisely stated
in the preamble to the bill, as follows:
Whereas, The presence of troops at the
polls is contrary to the spirit of our institu-
tions and the traditions of our people, and
tends to destroy the freedom of elections"
Upon this principle the Democratic and
Republican parties will join ISSUE and go be-
fore the country. The bill was carefully
framed so as to meet the views expressed by
Mr.. Hayes in his veto of the army bill, but
still it does not suit him, or rather it does not
please Mr.. Chandler and other Radical lead
ers, who are not willing to surrender the
power of carrying elections in doubtful States
by the menace of q military force. 1t is true
President Hayes declares that the army shall
not be used for such purposes during his adj
ministration; but if the supposed necessities
of the Republican party require it, way will
be found to overcome the reluctance of Mr..
Hayes, and the troops will be used as hereto
fore to intimidate Democrats and keep them
away from the polls. The people ofthe United
States are not willing to trust to the discre-
ton or patriotism of any President in this
matter. The object of the bill was to prevent
the possibility of the Executive using the
troops to carry elections. At the same time
it does not prevent him from using the army
as the Constitution allows him to do, namely,
upon the call of the Governor or the Legisla-
of a State, to suppress domestic violence Or
to repel foreign invasion.
The principle is an old and sacred one and
existed in England before the colonies became
free. In that country when an election takes
place where troops are Stationed they are
required to march out, it being held that
the mere presence of troops is menace to
the people and hindrance to the freedom of
elections.
The President is strangely inconsistent in
his reasoning. In one paragraph ofthe veto
the country is assured that "any military in
reference whatever at the polls is contrary TO
the spirit of our institutions, and would tend
to destroy the freedom of elections" and in
another paragraph it is stated that certain ex-
ceptions recognize and concede the sound
ness of the principle that military force may
properly and constitutionally be used at the
place of elections, when such use is necessary
to enforce the constitution and the laws"
The issue between the President and Con-
gress is simply this: The President claims
the right to send troops to any point, at any
time, despite the constitutional requirement
in the case, and Congress in the law which
has been vetoed declares that such power in
the hands of an executive is dangerous to our
liberties and ought to be curtailed
There is considerable speculation as to the
course the Democrats in Congress will pursue
in relation to the veto, but the rank and file
the party have confidence IN the wisdom
and patriotism of their leaders at Washing
ton, and can wait the result calmly