Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-06-19
THE PRESIDENTS yETOEs.
DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE QUESTION OF
TROOPS AT THE POLLS.


THE PRESIDENTS YETOES.
A DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF THE QUESTION OF
TROOPS AT THE POLLS.
In the House of Representatives on the
18th instant, Proctor Knott, of the House
judiciary committee, submitted to the House
the committees report upon the President
message vetoing the bill known as the Mill
tary Interference Bill. The report is quite
lengthy; but the following synopsis will give
q clear idea of the full text of the document
The report begins by stating that the dan
ger to be apprehended from the presence Of
troops at the polls is sufficiently apparent, and
has been repeatedly pointed out. As long
ago as 1868, Congress found it necessary to
pass bill to obviate it by strictly prohibit
ing military interference with elections, ex'
cept upon the call of State or to keep the
peace at the polls. That bill was approved
by President Lincoln and is now in force as
sections 2,OO2 and 5,528 of the Revised Stat
utes. The words "keep the peace at the
polls" were not in the original draft Of the
bill, but were added in the Senate, against
the remonstrances of majority of its sup.
porters who feared they would be miscon.
strued and used as pretext to evade with
impunity the penalties prescribed. To re-
move that pretext and prevent the recurrence
of practices already shown to be dangerous,
the present Congress, in making appropria-
tions for the support Of the army, struck out
the words in question. The President there
upon returned the bill without his signature
because, in his opinion, first, it was unneces-
sary; second, it would prevent civil officers
from using civil force to keep peace at the
polls, and third, the method Of repeating the
clause IN question was not in harmony with
Executive taste The first two objections the
committee, for the present, passes without re.
mark. With regard to the third, the report
says the manner of repeal was in strict con.
formity to the Constitution and the rules of
the House, and justified by numerous prece-
dents in the annals Of Federal legislation.
The latest of these precedents was contained
in the Army Appropriation bill for the pres.
ent fiscal year, which the President signed
without objection, Notwithstanding the pro.
vision was contained therein prohibiting the
use of the army as q posse comitatus. "It
might not be improper, therefore, for the
President to devote some attention to the con.
sistency of his own record, if not to the ordi-
nary proprieties hitherto observed by the
Chief Magistrate in communicating with the
supreme legislature of the country. The re-
port then recites the preparation and passage
of the separate measure Of the same nature,
with q view to obviate the Presidents objec
tions to the method of repeal, and says: "It,
too, was returned without approval" 1t then
takes up and examines in course the Presi-
dents reasons for vetoing the measure in
question. With regard to the first of these
that the bill is unnecessary, the report says: ::
"Whether the opinion of the majority of the
Representatives of the people is entitled to
any consideration at the hands of the Chief
Executive is, of course, matter to be deter.
mined by himself; but it is impossible to read
the two veto messages together without being
struck by their marked difference in tone as
regards this objection. The inevitable con-
clusion to be drawn from the first message
was that all authority to use the army at the
polls, even in aid of civil officers was tacitly,
if not expressly, abjured. In the second mes
sage, however, there is no such disclaimer 1t
is admitted that elections ought to be free
from military interference, but there is no in
timation that such interference would be un
lawful. On the contrary, the inference from
the second message is that, under certain cir
cumstances, it would be eminently proper.
The entire argument against the necessity of
the bill is, therefore, left upon the Presidents
assertion that troops have not been and will
not be used to interfere with elections during
his administration, but his term Of Office will
soon end and his opinions may change. The
subjects Of despot must depend for security
upon the grace of their master, but free
people will insist upon 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, a
number of existing laws, especially section
5,29S Of the Revised Statutes which, he says
was sanctioned by Washington, Jefferson,
jackson and Lincoln, and contains the prin-
ciple acted upon by four Presidents more en-.
deared than all others to the American peo-
ple.5 With regard to this objection the re-
port says: If the President had examined
the facts connected with the transactions to
which he alludes. he would have found that
neither of the four illustrious patriots re.
ferred to, either did or proposed to do any.
thing which would not have been lawful un.
der the strictest letter cf the bill which he
now vetoes." In proof of this assertion the
report recites the circumstances of the "whis-
ky rebellion" Of 1793 the conspiracy of
Aaron Burr; the nulli6cation movement of
1882, in South Carolina, and the outbreak of
the late civil war. 1t adds, "a sufficient, an
swer, however, to this objection is that it is
untrue. The various statutes to which he re-
fers, including section 5,29S, are as complete
ly abrogated by an act approved by Presi.
dent Lincoln, February 27, 1865, as they
possibly could have been by this bill had the
President signed it. A mere glance at the
two measures will place this proposition be-
yond doubt in any candid mind 1t is mat
ter of regret, therefore, that the President
should have assumed position so utterly
without foundation. 1t should be borne in
mind, however, that sections 2,002 and 5,52e
neither confer the power nor impose the duty
upon any officers Of the United States to keep
the peace at the polls. Congress has no con
stitutional power to confer such authority OF
impose such duty. Both power and duty
belong exclusively to the several States, as
was distinctly held by the Supreme Court
in the comparatively recent case of the
"United States Us. Cruikshank, ct aL, 2 OF
to, 551." The same principle was also enun
ciated by the same Court in 1912, in the case
of Pennsy lvania U.s. Prigg, 16 Peters, 625
Nor can it be said that mere power to exc
cute legal process carries with it authority tc
preserve the peace. If Marshal should be
forcibly resisted in the execution of process
in his hands, the persons resisting would, a.
held in the case Of the United States vs Cruik
shank, before cited, be guilty of two offenses