The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-06-19
THE FLIMSY VETO.
Proctor Knott's Dissection OF Ills Excel
lency's Veto Message No. 8.
WAsHINGTON, Juno IL.


Presidential message vetoing House bill
No. 1882, known as tho military intcrfer-
ence bill. The document is six or seven
thousand words in length, and takes up
and examines in detail all the objections
made by the President to the bill in ques-
tion. 1t begins by stating that the dan.
gor to be apprehended from the presence
oil troops at the polls is sufficiently ap-
parent, and has been repeatedly pointed
out. AS long ago as 1863 Congress found
it necessary TO pass bill to obviate it by
strictly prohibiting military interference
with elections, except upon call Of
State, or TO keep the peace at the polls.
That bill WAS approved by Lincoln and is
now in force as sections 2,0O2 and 5,528
Of the revised statutes. The words "keep
the peace at the polls" were not in the
original draft of the bill but were added
in the Senate against the remonstrances
of a majority of its supporters, who feared
they would be misconstrucd and used as
a prctext to evade with impunity the pen
altics prescribed. TO remove that pre-
text and prevent recurrence of practices
already shawn 10 he dangerous, the pres
ent Congress, in making appropriations
for the support Of the army, struck out
the words in question. The President
thcreupon returned the bill without his
signature being affixed thereto, because
in his opinion, first, it was unnecessary
second, it would prevent the civil officers
from using the civil force to keep the
peace at the polls and, tf!fd, the method
| Of the repeating clause in question was
| not in harmony with the Executive taste.
The first two objections the committee
for the present passes without remark.
With regard to the third the report says
THE manner of the repeal WAS in strict
conformity toSthe constitutional rules of
the l1ouse and justified by numerous prec-
edents in the annals Of Federal legisla-
ton. The latest of these preccdents was
contained i'll the army appropriation bill
| Tor the present fiscal year, which the
President signed without objection, not
witlstanding the provision contained
| therein prohibiting the use of the army
rs q posse comitdtus. II might not be i'm
| proper therefore, for the President to de-
vote some attention to the consistency of
his own record, if not to tho ordinary
precepts hitherto observed by the Chief
Magistrate in communicating with The su-
preme Legislature of the country" The
report then recitcs tho preparation and
passage ola separate measure Of the same
nature with view to Obyiate the Prcsi-
dents objections to the method of repeal,
and says 1t, too, was returned without ap-
proval.
1t then takes up and examines in course
the Presidents reasons for vetoing the
| measures in question. With regard to
! the first of them, that the bill IL unnec-
essary, the report says: "Whether the
opinion of the minority of the Reprcsen-
tatives of the people is entitled to any
consideration at the hands of the Chief
Executive is, of course, matter TO be de-
ternined by himself, but it is impossible
TO read the two veto messages together
without being struck by their marked diff
ference i'll tone M regards this objection.
The inevitable conclusion to be drawn
from tho first messAge was that all au-
thority TO use the army NJ the polls even
in aid of the civil officers was tacitly, il
not expressly, abjured. In the second
message, however, there is no such dis
claimer. 1t is admitted that elections
ought. IT, bc free from military interfer-
ence, but nc intimation that such inter-
ference would be unlawful. On the
contrary, the inference from the second
message is that under certain circum
stances it would be eminently proper.
The enGre argument against the necessi-
ty Of tho bill is, therefore, left to rest
upon the Presidents assertion that tho
troops have not been and will not be used
to interfere with elections during his ad-
nlinistration. But his term Of Office will
soon end and his opinions may change.
The subjects of despot must depend
for security upon the grace Of their mas.
ter, but free people will insistupon the
guarantees of positive law.
The second objection of the President
TO tho measure under consideration is
that it would abTogate, Mt certain times
and places, number of existing laws.
especially section 5,298 Of the revised
statues, which, he says, was sanctioned
by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and
Lincoln, and contains the principle acted
upon by four Presidents moro endeared
than all Others to the American people"
With regard to this objection, the report
sayS;:
facts connected with the transaction to
which he alludes, he would have found
that neither of the four illustrious pa
triots referred to either did or proposed
to do any thing which would not have
been lawful under the strictest letter of
the bill which he now vetoes."
- PAooA "a LILO usooItiou, Tue report
recites the circumstances of the "whiskv
rebellion" of 1893, the conspiracy Of
Aaron Burr, the notification movement
OF 1882 in South Carolina, and the out
break of the late civil war. 1t adds: "a
sufficient answer, however, to this obiec-
ton is that it is untrue. The yarsons
statutes to which he refers, including sec
ton o,z5o, are a5 completely abrogated
by. the act approved by President Lin
coin February q, 1865, as they probably
could have been by this bill had the
esident signed it. 4 mere glance at
the two measures will place this propo
sltion beyond doubt in any candid mind.
1t is matter of regret, therefore, that the
President should have assumed position
80 utterly without foundation. Itshould
be borne in mind, however, that sections
2,OO2 and 5,528 neither confer the power
Tor impose the duty upon any officer of
the United States to keep the peace at
the polls. Congress has not tho consti-
| tutional power to confer such authority
| or impose such duty. Both the power
! and the duty belong exclusively to
the several otates, as was distinctly
held by the Supreme Court in the com
| paratiyely recent case of the United
States os. Ctuikshank ct al, 2 Otto. fhI
The same principle was also enuncil I'D
by the same court in 1912 in the case of
Pennsylvania rs. Prigg, Is Peters, 625
Nor can it bo said that the mere power
to execute legal process carries with it
the authority to preserve the peace. If
tba marshal should be forcibly resisted