The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-06-19
THE FLIMSY VETO.
Proctor Knots Dissection OF His Excel
lency's Veto Message No. 3.
WASHINGTON, June II.

WASHINGTON, June IL.
Proctor Knott, of the House Judiciary
Committee, submitted to the House to-
day the committees report upon the
Presidential message vetoing House bill
No. 1882, known as the military interfer-
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-
ton. It begins by stating that the dan.
ger to be apprehended from the presence
of 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 5,52S
of the revised statutes. The words "keep
the peace at the polls" we're 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 misconstrued and used as
pretext to evade with impunity the pen
alties prescribed. To remove that pre-
text and prevent recurrence of practices
already shown to be dangerous, the pres
ent Congress, in making appropriations
for the support of the army, struck out
the words in question. The President
thereupon 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 forcesto keep the
peace at the polls and, thifd, 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 House and justified by numerous prec-
edents in the annals of Federal legisla-
ton. The latest of these precedents was
contained in the army appropriation bill
! for the present fiscal year, which the
President signed without objection, not
.withstanding the provision contained
therein prohibiting the use of the army
as posse comitatus. 1t 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 the ordinary
precepts hitherto observed by the Chief
Magistrate in communicating with the su-
preme Legislature of the country" The
report then recites the preparation and
passage ofa separate measure of the same
nature with a view to obviate the Presi-
dents objections to the method ofrepeal,
and says it, too, was returned withoutap-
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 is unnec-
essary, the report says: whether the
opinion of the majority of the Represen-
tatives of the people is entitled to any
consideration at the hands of the Chief
Executive is, of course, matter to be de-
termined by himself, but it is impossible
to read the two veto messages together
without being struck.by their marked diff
ference in tone as regards this objection.
The inevitable conclusion to be drawn
from the first message was that all au-
thority to use the army at the polls even
in aid of the civil officers was tacitly, if
not expressly, abjured. In the second
message, however, there is no such dis
claimer. It is admitted that elections
ought to be free from military interfer"
ence, but no 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 entire argument against the necessi-
ty of the bill is, therefore, left to rest
upon the Presidents assertion that the
troops have not been and will not be used
to interfere with elections during his ad-
ministration. But his term of Office will
soon end and his opinions may change.
The subjects of q 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 the measure under consideration is
that it would abrogate, at certain times
and places, number of existing laws,
especially section 5,29S of the revised
statues, which, he says, "was sanctioned
by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and
Lincoln, and contains the principle acted
upon by four Presidents more 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.".
In proof of this assertion, the report
recites the circumstances of the whisky
rebellion" of 1898, 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 objec-
ton is that it is untrue. The various
statutes to which he refers, including Sec
ton 5,29S, are as completely abrogated
Dy tne act apPIoVeu ny IreSiueuI LII
coin February q, 1865, as they probably
could have been by this bill had the
President signed it. A mere glance at
the two measures will place this propo-
sition beyonO doubt in any candid mind.
It is matter of regret, therefore, that the
President should have assumed position
so utterly without foundation. Itshould
be borne in mind, however, that sections
2,0O2 and 5,52S neither confer the power
nor impose the duty upon any officer of
the United States to keep the peace at
the polls. Congress has not the consti-
tutional power to confer such authority
or impose such duty. Both the power
and the duty belong exclusively to
the several States, as was distinctly
held by the Supreme Court in the com
paratively recent case of the United
States ~. Cruikshauk ct al, 9 Otto. 55l.