The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-05-08
THE ARMY BILL VETO.

ocratic majority in Congress the gauntlet
for fight between the legislative and
the executive departments of the gov
ernment upon the very issues which
Congress hts invited. The veto mes
sage has very little either of reason or
excuse in it, and is entirely inconsistent
with the position which President Hayes
occupied while member of Congress.
During that time he is said to have voted
for the very laws which are now sought
to be repealed as riders to one of the
appropriation bills. It was, therefore,
all right to vote for the enactment of
these laws as part of an appropriation
bill, but it is now a despotic exercise of
power to attempt to repeal them in the
same manner in which they were enact
ed. Then, it was for the interest Of the
Republican party that the laws should
be passed, and now it is for the interest
of the same party that they should not
be repealed; and therefore Mr.. Hayes,
forgetful of his sacred responsibilities
under the high oath of his Office to faith
fully and impartially administer the
government, prefers to be consistent to
his views of party advantage rather than
to adhere to the principles which he has
sanctioned by his own votes on repeated
occasions. Mr.. Hayes admits that the
practice of engrafting general legislation
on appropriation bills is sanctioned by
repeated practice for sixty years, and
that it is not in conflict with the consti-
tuition. Then he practically admits that
Congress has the right to pass bills in
such form as it sees ft, and if so, then it
is tho Presidents duty TO consider the
measures presented upon theiE, own
merits. If the laws are good, then they
should be approved, no matter in what
form they are passed, and the President
ha. 40 more right to object to the form
of the law which is constitutional and
advantageous to the country than the
Gove,nor of this State would have to
veto an act of the Legislature because
the sections did not come in the order he
would have preferred. Mr.. Hayes does
not like the practice Of engrafting gene
ral legislation upon appropriation bills,
but it is not contrary to Law nor to pre-
cedent, and his Excellency, by his veto
on this ground, rises to censure the exec
utives and the legislatures for the past
sixty years, and at the same time places
his unqualified condemnation upon his
own political career in Congress.
Nor is his second ground of veto any
more ably sustained. He admits that
already the posse eomitatus' clause Of
an appropriation bill, which he himself
approved two years ago, prevents the use
of the army at the polls, and hence a
mere repetition of an existing law is no
sufficient cause for vetoing an appropri-
alton bill. If, the original law is in
force, repeating it can do no possible
harm. What the President says about
protecting federal elections is all very
we'll, if the States are to be considered as
colonies, to be ruled and coerced into q.
proper discharge Of their duty BY the
administration but if this is free gov
erpment Of equal States, then the as
sumption that the State laws will not
protect State and federal elections alike,
is one step in the direction Of monarchial
Epower, for if tho right to protect (?)
federal elections is given to the adminis-
tration, the exercise of discretion as TO
what is protection, and aChere it IS saecea-
sary, are concomitants Of that power
which make it dangerous in the extreme.
If protection is necessary, then the law
has provided how the Governor or the
Legislature of any State msy properly
ohtainsthat protection. The law, as
framed to meet this end by the statesmen
OF America in the better days of the
Republic, when the interest of the whole
country rose high above party advan-
tages, was wise and ample. 1t admitted
the integrity of the States, and did not
place them under the surveillance Of
the national executive, who is liable to
all of the bias and prejudice incident to
self-interest or party acrimony. II it is
admitted that the President is the auto
crat of Ghe Republic, with supreme
power to coerce the States and compel
them to execute their laws as he sees
proper for them to be executed, then Dir.
Hayes is right about the propriety of
the national executive having power and
authority to protect ~ the right to vote
in federal elections. The present laws,
however, were passed a, war measures,
and were never intended to sanction
such doctrine. Their use was intend
ed for the Southern States as penalty
for secession, and a guaranty of the en-
forcement Of the constitutional amend
ments. They have since been used
by designing and ambitious administra-
tions to thwart the will of the people.
and under the plea of protection ~ to
overthrow free elections and control the
ballot-box. ANY laws which tend to
concentrate power in the hands of one
man, ara destructive of republican gov
ernment, and Mr.. Hayes veto is as weak
in its comments upon the expediency Of
theproposed legislation IS tits presump-