The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1879-06-27

the Rouse JlIIEiIrt Committee TODAY. thu
Hon. J. Proctor Knott, the Chairman. sub.
mitted his report on the message OF X. b
Hayes setOing the bill 10 prevent interfer.
ence at elecfions. After the reading Of the
document some discussion arose, in which
the Republican members Of the Committed
gave assurance that they would not object
20 the presentation Of the report to the
House. 70 have II printed and recommiffed,
the design Of this procedure being to afford
the minority an opportu lily 70 prepare 4
statement embracing their views upon the
veto in question. with the understsr DIM
that this course should be pursued, Chair
man Knott was authorized. without dissent,
70 report the document 70 the House At the
hrst opportunity, which he did to-day. Az
ter referring 20 the bills ~ presented to Mr..
Hayes and his reasons for yetoing them, the
report goes on 10 say:
Impressed with the importance Of remov-
Ing the last shadow Of . pretext for any I'm
reference whatever with state elections by
the armed forces Of the United States. and
desiring 20 obviafe. II possible. the Presidents
for that purpose, the House Of Representa-
ttyes promptly passed q separate bill which
was rs promptly concurred In by the Senate
simply providing that IL should not be lawful
70 bring 20 or employ nc any place where a
general or special election Is being held in
any state any part Of the army or navy. un-
less such force should be necessary TO repel
<IUI4<.
70 enforce section 4, article Of the Constifu-
ton and the laws made In pursuance thereof
and repeating all provisions Of Law fnconsfst-
ent with the purposes OF the BILL Having
been thus presented As an independent
disconnected from any appro.
priation bill, and containing no reference 70
any supposed power In the civil authorities
q tne United states ITO employ an adequate
cizfi force" 20 keep the peace at ConRTessiOn-
al elections. which the President seems
specially anxious should not be fnfringed. Il
was confidently expected that this would re-
cefve the Executive sanction. IL was speedi-
~ returned. however. with message as
signing his objections to its approval. which
are now 20 be considered
The frst OF these objecticEs f. a simple
of one assigned in the message
yetoing the Army Appropriation bill-that as
4 measure 20 prevent military interference af
the polls the bill WAS unnecessary. whether
lives of the peonie and OF the states as 60
the necessity for enacting or repeating q law
l. entitled 20 any consideration In the eefi-
nation OF the chief executive magistrate Is
% course matter TO be determined by him
self. but 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
81 April p. after quoting at length the vari-
BUS statutes IN relation 20 the subject. and
,ne In particular upon the construction and
Eject 81 the 18th section Of the Army Appro-
priatfon bill approved June u. ISIS, making
{ penal offence 70 employ any portion 81
he army posse cornifafus or otherwise
or the purpose Of enforcing the laws except
y cases expressly authorized BY the
or act Of Congress, the writer
i'd.
Prom this brief review Of the subject Il
efficiently appears that under existing laws
n ctions- II may therefore be confidently
tated that there Is no necessity for the
nactnent ~ section 8 Of the bill before
ne to prevent military Interference with
lectlons. The laws Ia force are al that are
lie then proceeds 20 state distinctly what
rpears 20 have been the main objection 20
rs eiTil o h w fn,, ~pusn pron,p
Employing adequate civil force TO enable
hem 20 keep the peace and execute certain /
avs az what he was pleased 20 call national
lecttons- Considered. therefore. as a candid
nd ingenious paper. the Inevitable c0nclu-
ion 10 be drawn from 10 was that all aufhorf-
y 10 employ the military power of the United
tates at the polls, even In aid Of civil ON
err. wss facility. II not expressly. abjured. /
here f. no such disclaimer. however. in the \
lessage under consideration. While Il Il ad- \
litted the elections should be free from all [
% 90 be present at the polls and perform
he duties of the ordinary ciyil police force.
here l. no intimafion that IL would be unlaw-
Il for them 70 do 30. or that the President or
ny military of'icer Of the United States I
light not 80 employ them with fmpunffy, i
nd evade any penalty therefor under the
refense t.-at IL was necessary 20 preserve \
be peace. On the contrary. the clear infer
nee 20 be drawn from the entire document
that such a use of the military power of the Il
ederal Government Il not only legal. but,
nder certain circumstances. may be emf
But Their. 4 where the danger Of military
reference with elections becomes not only
0ssibie but almost inevitable. ns has been n
osndantiy shown N numerous s,l and startling
high political excitement In locali-
Is where the contending psrties
e nearly equally balanced. or
corrupt minority in political accord with
rose who nave control of the troops are de- II
rmtned 20 defeat the popular win by bring
4 force % the assistance Of fraud, appre-
sSfly stimulated. and bayonets readily fur
shed under the pretexf Of keeping the
sacc at the polls. but really to intimidais the
lter and destroy the freedom Of the ballot
the bin f.. therefore. left 20 rest upon the
residents reiterated assertion that troops .
ave not been and viii not be used 20 inter-
re with any State election during his nd-
inisfrntion- That assertion was. no doubt,
ncere. but unfortunately for its validity IS
reason for refusing 10 approve bill de-
gned for the protection Of future genera
Dns as well a. this. the Official term OF the
'esent Executive ~ limited. and ne may be
cceeded in the exalted position he occu
es by one who will feel q less scrupuious re-
LIu lOI tue ttttlVlU anu IfAlitt ~ tue uAAt0t
an Ice processes himself 20 entertain More
Ter. he a human. and liable 90 change. and
, one but himself can know 90 what extent
2 partisan debates In Congress may have I
his opinions even upon the ques-
rms involved In tie veto under consfdera-
IN. The subjects of despot must depend I
7 security upon the grace OF their master. I
Il free people. II they would remain free.
u insist upon the guarantees Of positive
v.
IN regard 70 the third objection 20 the bill.
c report says. Mr.. Hayes's objection Il " its
In favor Of the State and
ainst the national authority. Under this I
~" says he. 1.-THE presence or employment !
the army or navy Of the United States
,uId be lawful and might be necessary
maintain the conduct OF state ,
scti0n against domestic violence that would
ertnrow it.- II this had been uttered in q I
ere haranguc from the hastings IL would ,
obably be suspected as a specfous appeal
popular or party prejudice. but found In a
lemn state paper emanating from the 1
<hest Executives Magistrate known 20 our I