The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-06-12
UAYES'S VETOES ANALYZED.
THE RINGING REPORT SENT FORTH by
TuE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.


WASHINGTON, juno 11.-At q meeting OF
mo House Judiciary Committee to-day. tho
non 7 Proctor Knott the Chairman. submitted
his report on the message OF r. B. Hayes Veto
inc the bill to prevent interference at elections.
lrer the reading OF tho document some discus
,i,n arose. in which the Republican members |
~ tho Committee gave assurance that they |
would not object to tho presentation OF the re- |
mort To- the House to have II printed and recon- |
nittod the desire OF this procedure being to |
all ,rd the minority an opportunity to prepare n
statement embracing their views upon the veto
in question. With the understanding that this
course should be pursued. Chairman Knott was
authorized without dissent to report the docu-
rent 10 the House at the first opportunity
which he did to-day After referring to the
hills MS presented TO Mr. Hayes and his reasons
Tor ye;oing them. the report goes on TO say:
Impressed with the importance OF romov-
INK the last shadow OF a prctcM for any in
reference whatever with State elections by
the armed forces of the United States. and de-
string 10 obviate. IL possible. tho Presidents OBJ
ietious 20 the measure already proposed for
that purpose. tho House OF Representatives
promptly passed separate bill which was ms
promptly concurrcd in by the Senate. simply
providing that It should not be- lawful TO bring
to or employ at any place whore a general or
special election is being held in any State any
uart Of tho army or navy. unless such force
Should bee necessary to rep"l the armed enemies
~ the United states. or To- enforce section 4.
article 4 Of the Constitution and the laws made
IN pursuance thereof. AMI repeating all pro-
visions Of law inconsistent with the purposes ot
the bill. Having boon thus presented as an in
dependent proposition, disconnected from any
appropriation bill md containing no reference
g. any -uuu0sed power in the civil authorities
Of The United States TO employ an adequate
civil force DO to keep tho peace ut Congress iOual
elections. which the President seems specially
anxious should not be In hinged. IL was conf
IDENTITY expected that this would receive the EX-
ecutive sanction. II was speedily returned.
however. with message assigning his ohlec-
tions 10 It's approval which are now 10 be con-
The first Il these objections il n simple rope
uton OF one assigned IN TIE message Nrtolng
the Army Appropriation biil-thHt ae n measure
"a prevent military intcrierence ht the pous the
bill was unnecessary. whether the opinions OF
majority OF tho rcure sentatlyes Of the people
and ~ the States as to the necessity for enact
ing or repeating law is entitled 20 any con-
sideration in the estimation OF the chief eNecu-
tive magistrate II of course matter TO be- de-
tcrmined 10y himself. hut no one can read the
two messages together without being struck by
the marked difference in the tone OF the two
documents in respect to this objection. In the
message Of April 20. after quoting at length the
various statutes in relation TO the subject. and
one In particular upon the construction and
effect Of the 18th section OF the. Army Appro-
praton bill. approved June ls. 1878. making II
penal offence to employ any portion OF the
army as posse comitatus or otherwise for the
purpose Of enforcing the laws except in cases
expressly authorized by the Constitution or act
Of Congress the writer adds:
From this brief reyicw Of the subject 1t suicieny ap
lsTisrsMee Win eieetens Il NAV thersi"rs IL
confidently stated that there necessity Tor the en-
iary interference viii elections The laws IN force al
that are required 10 that end
He then proceeds to state distinctly what ap.
pears 10 have been the main objection 10 the
section. namely: That 1t would prohibit the
civil officers Of the United States from employ
ing adequate civil force TO enable them TO kecI
the peace and execute certain laws al what he was
uNsaI
therefore. rs a candid and Ingenious paper
the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from Il
was that all authority TO employ the military
power OF the United States at the polls even ii
aid Of civil officers. was tacity II not expressly
ablured There is no such disclaimer. however
IN the message under CONSIDERATION. While |
Is admitted the elections should be free from al
forcibl7 interference, and that soldiers ouGh
not 10 be present at the polls and perform tn
duties OF the ordinary civil police force. there II
no intimation that II would be unlawful FOL
them 70 do So or that the President or any mill
tary officer Of the United States might not 81
employ them, with IMMUNITY. and evade AM
necessary 10 preserve tho peace. On the con
trary. the clear inference to be drawn from IN
entire document t Is mat sHeh use oil the m
only legal. but. under certain circumstances
may be eminently proper; ,,,..- l.
reference with elections becomes not only pos
she but almost inevitable. as has been abund
Antly shown In numerous and startling In
stances in our own recent history. In times 0
high political excitement in localities wher
the cOnteudlng parties are nearly eQual
balanced OF where the unscrupu lous leaders o
corrupt minority ~ political accord WIZ
termined 20 defeat the popular will by bringing
force 10 the assistance Of fraud. apprehension
OF riots and disturbances will be easily stimu
lated and bayonets readily furnished under III
preteXt Of keeping the peace at the polls. bu
really 10 intimidate the voter and destroy IN
freedom Of the ballot
The entire argument against the necessity q
the bill is. therefore lcft 10 rest upon the Presi
dents relterated assertion that troops have nc
h4. and vii rt.fl Ia n re- an
State election during his administration. Tha
assertion was no doubt. sincere, but unfortu
nately Tor its validity as a reason for retusn
= approve a hin designed for the protection q
future generations rs well as this, the onicit
term 81 the present Executive Is limited, and h
may be succeeded ia ths exalted position he oc
cupics hy one who will feel a less scrupulou
regard for the freedom and pur>y OF the hallc
than be processes himself TO entertain. Mqrt
over. be il human. and liable TO change, and y
oLe hut himself can know 10 what extent "a
partisan debates in Congress may have inilu
ell ,'d his opinions even upon the questions IN
Nolyol in ths veto under consideration. I'll
subjects Of drspot must depend tor securit
upon the grace Of their master. but a free peO
pie II they would remain free, viii insist upo
IL guarantees OF positive law.
bill the report says, Mr.. Hayes obIectio
Is It's discrimination in favor OF the stat
ani against the national authority. Under mi
pm. says ne m, presence or smploymeht s,
y" army or navy % the United states would
conduct ~ state election against doinrst
violence that would overthrow 1t, but would /
uh.n" Va. io maintain the conduct Of q nhtoh
would overthrow H." II This had been uttere
IN .rr harangue from the hustlngs II woul
probably be suspected ~ speciot
tut found in q s0lrun State paper emanhtin
from tLa highest Executive Magistrate know
10 our Constitution. II Is 81 course dlvcsted
any such suspicion. and should receive III
respectful consideration To- which lts distll
cui-hrd source entities II. II Is unnecessary
undertake 90 determine here precisely what u
irr,iaent means by The term national &c