Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-15
A Second Veto.

'""5Rohi " III Inv N"t't Patt VI INV
week, Mr. Hayes has been driven by
the power of party necessities to veto
the bill passed by Congress to prohibit
military interference at the elections.
The veto message was sent in on Tues
day, and while the reasons advanced
by Mr.. Hayes TO justify the exercise of
his negative power are somewhat in
genious, the document as whole is
such n logical inconsistency that it
will meet with deserved condemnation,
aside from the outrage upon the free
dom of elections the refusal to sign
the bill is calculated to perpetuate.
There can be no doubt that the first
intention of the weak man of the
White House was to give the bill bis
approval. Only last week he express
cd that intention to his intimate friends
But it appears that the vehement
pressure of Conkling, Edmunds, Blaine
and Chandler was more than poor Mr..
Hayes could withstand. lie distinct
ly avowed his appreciation OF the
measure, and in his veto message
clearly admits the soundness Of the
principle upon which it il founded ; vet
against his better judgment he tamely
permits himself TO be forced by the
influence of these implacables into a
false position. This disqualification is
indeed humiliating to contemplate.
The bill presented to Mr.. Hayes reads
as follows:
" BE it enacted, &c, That I, shall not be
lawful To bring TO or employ at any place
where general or special election l. being
held in State any Tart of the army OF
navy Of the United States, unless such
force be necessary " repel armed enemies
uf the L nitcd States, or 10 enforce sectiou
1, article 4, Of the Consultation Of the
United States and laws made in pursuance
thereof, on application Of the Legislature
or Executive o! the State whore such force
Is to be used, and - much of all laws as is
inconsistent herewith ia repealed"
1t will be observed, while this pro-
posed enactment carefully guarded
against any encroachment upon the
rights and prerogatives of the execu-
tive department of the government, it
was guarantee for free and peaceful
election polls where citizens might
vote nnvexed by unlawful interference
and unawed by the CLEAN of sol.
dier's bayonet. II seems incompre-
hensible that a single American citi.
zen with yeneration for the principles
Of Republican government should be
found in opposition to its passage.
The vetoed bill, the Philadelphia
Times pcrtinently remarks, "was COM
mended to the confidence of the
country by the silence of the disarmed
leaders /; by the confessions OF party
organs by the practical suggestions
of the veto of the army bill, and by
the avowcd approval of the President
himself"
And what excuse, continues
the Times, "is offered for this be-
trayal of the tranquility Of the coun-
try, in obedience to the arrogant com
mands of revolutionists If the Pres
ident had not declared his approval
Of the bill after its thorough inycs-
tigation by the House, it might be
assumed that he has honestly deceived
himself into his second veto; butwiih
a manifest purpose of the majority of
Congress to yield all that the Execu-
tive asked on this issue, for the sake
of attaining harmony between the
Executive and the legislative author
ity, the President suddenly recoils upon
himself and presents veto message
that is notable mainly for its feeble
ness in all save its self.contradic-
tions. In one paragraph of the veto
the country is assured that "any mill.
tary interference whatever at the polls
Is contrary TO the spirit of our institu-
tions, and would tend to destroy the
freedom of elections" and in another
ragraph 1t Is stated That certain cx-
ceptions recognize and concede the
soundness of the principle that mill.
tary force may properly and constitu.
tionally be used at the place of cleo
a. 4. n