Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1879-05-09
COngress--the Democrats Trying to Find
u Way Out Of their IBredicamPnt

On Monday of last week, the army appro-
pration bill was put on its passage in the
House over the Presidents veto and was lost,
yeas 100, nays 40, two-thirds vote being
necessary. From all accounts it is evident
that the Democrats We're utterly pcrplexed
and demoralized by the veto. Tive or more
joint caucuses of Democratic Senators and
Representatives were held, Mt which there was
much angry discussion, and it is not denied
that sentiments were expressed by the South
cln members which some of the cooler-head-
ed Northern men knew would be death to the
party if made public, and pledge of secrecy
was accordingly placed on the gathering. A
committee was finally appointed with instruc-
tons to draft and present separate measure
forbidding the use of troops at the polls, and
the following bill was accordingly introduced
in the House on Monday
Whereas the presence of troops at the polls
is contrary TO the spirit Of our institutions
and the traditions of our people, and tends to
destroy the freedom of elections; therefore
be it enacted, etc, that it shall not be lawful
to bring to or employ at any place where a
general or special election is being held in
State, any part of the army or navy of the
to repel armed enemies of the United States
or to enforce section 1, article 4, of the con-
stituton of the United States, and the laws
made in pursuance there of, or on application
of the legislature or executive of the State
where such force is to be used and so much
of all laws as is inconsistent herewith is here
by repealed.
Monday evening a caucus of Republican
Senators and Representatives was held to see
what course they would take upon this meas
ure. Senator Edmunds was outspoken against
the BILL characterzing it as even more dan
gerous to the liberties of the people and a
grosser violation of the constitutional rights
of the executive than the riders to the army
and Legislative appropriation bills. Mr.. Robe
son of New Jersey thought the bill an i'm
provement on the vetoed section of the army
bill, but he should vote against it all the
same. Senator Conkling said that the posi-
ton of the democracy was rs threatening now
Ms it was before the veto, and he did not see
how, in the light of the Presidents veto mes
sage, he could approve the democratic caucus
measure. Remarks in q similar vein were
made by Representatives Hawley of Connect
lieut., Bedford of Colorado, Frye of Maine,
buhBer OF MlChlBhli ana OlnerS ana the IL
nal decision was to introduce a substitute for
the Democratic bill This was accordingly
done on Tuesday when the matter came up
in the House for discussion, Mr., Robeson of
fering n bill entitled "An act to further pro-
tect the Freedom of Elections" this substi-
tute making it unlawful to bring to or employ
at any place where general or special cleo
ton is being held in State any part of the
army or navy unless such employment shall
be necessary to carry out the provisions of
the constitution, or overcome forcible obstruc-
ton to the execution of laws made in pursu-
auce thereof, and making any violation of
this act penal ofIense,
When the question came to n vote this Re
publican substitute was voted down, and the
Democratic caucus bill above quoted was
passed without debate The Senate will
probably pass the measure without amend
ment-and then the chances are that there
will come another veto from the President
The bill certainly ought to be vetoed, if, as
now seems probable, it is thrown in the Pres
iients face with the implied threat that UNI
less he approves it, no money will be voted
for the support of the army.