Daily globe., 1879-05-13
HAYES SECOND VETO,

Congress forbidding the use of the military
force of the United States at elections. 1t
is we'll. We are glad that he has reached
that decision, aud that tho party that as
sumes the responsibility for his incumbency
of the Presidential Office has decided to
father tho act Nothing better for tho credit
of the Democratic party could have been de-
principles of that party, for it is a clinching
proof of what has long been assorted, that
the Republican party is opposed to republi
canism apa is arrayed in direct hostility to
the wishesof the people.
There are only two ways in which the will
of the people in this country can be ascer-
tanned. One is by means of tho ballot and
the other is through their representatives i'll
Congress. The people were defeated in 1877
| through the fraudulent Inauguration of the
present executive of the nation. An elec
ton has taken place since that time, and the
verdict recorded in 1876 has been reaflirmed,
most emphatically, by the election of Sena-
tors and Representatives of the Democratic
faith.
| When General Grant was inaugurated as
President of the United States he declared
that he had no policy that he desired to en-
force against the will of the people. The
assertion was heralded abroad as the acme
of patriotism. His party asserted that that
declaration stamped him as statesman tar
above the average rank, but each man who
subscribed to the assertion knew that the
Congress of tho country was in accord with
the incumbent of the Presidential chair.
We may be pardoned, in view of the as
sertions of both Lincoln and Grant, in as
suming that an honest executive should
have no policy of his own to interpose to do
feat the will of the people. Both of these
men were legally elected to preside over the
nation. 1t seons that the task of assuming
to interpose for tho purpose of defeating the
will of the people has been reserved for
person who was mover elected to the Presi
dental Office Two weeks since Mr.. Haye
sent message to the House of Representa-
tivos disappearing of tho army appropriation
bill. His reasons were given IN ertensc
In brief, they wore, that he did no
like the practice of attaching OK
traneous legislation to appropriation bills
and that no regarded the amendment
r SO attached as an attempt to coerce the OK
ecutive. The legislation contemplated wa
J., detached from the appropriation bill, wa
Invested of tho features that Mr.. Hayes dc
J., clared to be obnoxious, and he has decide
0 to veto the bill.
What are his reasons? The most paltr
imaginable, and the farthest fetched. Hi
s first three points-that it would 1nterfel
P with the place and manner of holding elet
t tions; that it would interfere with his powt
y as commandor-in-ch chief of tho army-ar
J. simply ridiculous. In tho first place the Col
a stitution does not giue the President, eve
though he may DO properly elected, al
jurisdiction ovor tho election of Senators
J. Representatives. In the next place there
y no limit placed upon the power of tho exec'
d tive to call out the militia He ca
If exercise his privilege as fully as ho ma
= wish, restricted only by tho law which re
Z State to furnish armed mon in cases
It emergency. ''t
j. Tho pretense that the laws sought to
repealed have any bearing upon the puri
Of the ballot box is absurd. The laws
question are not designed to deprive NJ
a. citizen of the right to casta ballot, but rat
t. or to protect him in that right.
10 The only question in the matter is IL
al question OF the right of the States to contr
a elections. That question has been discuss'
1t in the GLOBE heretofore-it will be debat
g again, for the question Of the right of Stat
I'd lies at the bottom of this whole matter.