American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1879-06-28
HAYES vETOEs ANALYzED.
The Ringing Report Sent Forth by
The Judiciary Committee.

| WASHINGTON, June 11.-At a meeting OF
the House Judiciary Committee to-day, the
Hon. J. Proctor Knott, the Chairman, sub
| mitted his report on the message Of r. B.
Hayes vetoing the bill to prevent interior
| ence at elections. After the reading of the
document some discussion arose, in which
gave assurance that they would not object
| to the presentation of the report to the
| House, to have it printed and recommitted,
the design of this procedure being to afford
| statement embracing their views upon the
veto in question. With the understanding
| that this course should be pursued, Chair
man Knott was authorized, without dissent,
to report the document to the House at the
| first opportunity, which he did o-day. Al
| ter referring to the bills as presented to Mr..
Hayes and his reasons for vetoing them, the
| Impressed with the importance of remov-
| ing the last shadow of a pretext for any in
the armed forees Of the h tfnited states. an ny
desiring to obvfate, if possible the Presidents
objections to the measure already proposed
lives promptly typ passed separate Eli. which
was as promptly concurred In by the Senate,
to bring to or employ at any place where a
general or special election is being held in
any any state any part 81 the army OF navy, uni
| the armed enemies of the United States. or
to enforce section 4. article of the Constitu-
and repeating ali provisions OF law inconsist''
emf with the purposes of the bill. Having
proposition, disconnected from any appro-
priation bill, and containing no reference to
Of she Epited States Ito employ an adeanase
civil force" to keep the peace at Congression-
al elections. which the Presi dent. seems y
was confidently expected that this would re-
ceive the Executive sanction. 1t was speedf-
signing his objections to its approval. which
are now to be considered
repetition of one assigned in the message
vetoing the Army Appropriation bill-that as
measure to prevent military interference at
the polls the bill was unnecessary. Whether
tives Of the people and of the States as to
is entitled to any consideration in the esti-
nation of the chief executive magistrate is
of course matter to be determined by him
self. but no one can read the two messages
together without being struck by the marked
in respect to this this Objection. In the message
of April %, after quoting at length the vari;
GUS statutes in relation to the subject, and
one in particular upon the construction and
effect of the 18th section of the Army Appro-
prtation bill approved June Is, 1878, making
tba pe 20 P9y any Or
for the purpose of enforcing the laws except
n expressly the by sae
adds:
Gle ctions. 1t may therefore be confidently
Enactment lent Of section Of the bin before
me to prevent military interference with
elections. The laws in force are all that are
He then proceeds to state distinctly what
appears to have been the main objection to
the civil officers of the United States from
employing adequate civil force to enable
laws at what he was pleased to cali national
elections. Considered. therefore. as candid
and ingenious paper, the ineSit t c0hcI9
ty to employ the military power of the United
States at the polls, even in aid of civil on
GERS, was tacitly, If not expressly. abjured.
There is no such disclaimer. however, In the
message under consideration. While It is ad
forcible interference, and that soldiers ought
not to be present at the polls and perform
there is no intimation that it Would be uniaw
full for them to do SO, or that the President OF
any military officer Ct the unitea states
and evade any penalty therefor under the
pretense that it was necessary to preserve
ence to be drawn from the entire document
is that such use of the military power of the
Federal Government is not only legal. but,
But there is where the danger of military
interference with elections becomes not only
possible but almost inevitable, as has been
abundantly shown in numerous and startling
Of high political eXcitement In locaii-
ties where the contendfng parties
aTs s sne un snl ieaders Of
a corrupt minority in political accord with
10 be OF
ing force to the assistance of fraud, apPre-
hension OF riots and disturbances Viii be
peace at the polls, but really to intimidate the
The entire argument against the necessity
of the bill is, therefore, left to rest upon the
have not been and will not be used to inter
fere with any State election during bis ad-
ministration. That assertion was, no doubt,
sincere, but unfortunately for its validity as
signed for the protection 81 fnture genera
present Executive is limited and he may be
succeeded in the exalted position he occu-
gard for the freedom and purity of the ballot
than he processes himself to entertain. More
over. he is human: and liable to change, and
the partisan debates in Congress may have
influenced his opinions even upon the ques-
lions involved in the veto under cOnsidera-
ton. The subjects of q despot must depend
for security upon the grace of their master,
law.
the report says, Mr.. Hayes's objection is ' its
Discrimination in favor of the State and
against the national authority. Under this
bill. says he, 1.-THE presence or employment
would be lawful and might be necessary
election against domestic violence that would
overthrow it," If this had been uttered In
mere harangue from the hastings IL would
probably be suspected as a specfous appeal
to popular or party prejudice: but found IN
highest Executive aps Magistrate known to our
Constitution, 1t Is of course Invested OF any
such suspicion, and should receive that re-
spectful consideration to which Its dtst1n-
guished source entities 1t. 1t is unnecessary
to undertake to determine here precisely
tionai elections" or to discuss the distinction
which he seems to draw between such cleo
ton and any other elections which may be
country understands that all elections in a
State, whether for members of Congress or
Governor or other State or local officers. are
rive their right to vote. as was correctly de:
cided by the Supreme Court in the case OF
State, and not from the United States; that
any act at the polls or elsewhere by which
the free exercise of that right is unlawfully
prevented, as well as the abuse of the right
itself, is punishable under statute laws; that
the people of a State have the same rights
and are as much interested in the election of
their Representatives in Congress as they are
in choosing their local officers; that the re-
suit in each Is ascertained. and evidence OF
the election furnished by the State officials
in pursuance of State laws, and that it is as
much within the power and as much the duty
of the State Government to maintain the con-
duct of one as the other. Nor Is 1t necessary
to add to the length of this paper by discuss
ing the right asserted in behalf of the Govern
ment of the United States to make laws for
the supervision of the elections of members
voting or the unlawful prevention of the ex-
ercise of the right of suffrage at such an cleo
ton. Il is sufficient to say as has already
Federal Government has not. and no law OF
Congress can give it. the authority to pre-
serve the peace in a State either at the polls
or elsewhere, unless called upon by the prop
er State authorities for that purpose under
the circumstances for which the Constitution
has therefore. there could