Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1880-05-12

Inc Dluuder OF hayes IN n recent
veto extracts the following from the
editor of the Philadelphia Times:
"Ifthe democrats could have d.
rected the action of tie executive to
serve their partisan purposes, they
could not have made him better pro-
mote their interests. They refused to
make appropriations for the marshals
at the extra session because the re-
publicans would aotconsent to modify
the violent and revolutionary powers
Of deputy marshals and supervisors,
and the marshals have necessarily
suffered serious embarrassment in
performing their legitimate duties.
When the present session took up the
deficiency bill for the relief of the
marshals, General Garfield presented
an amendment of such admitted fair
ness that even those who voted
against it could not assail its merits.
1t was accepted by the democrats as
a measure Of peace, and it was be-
lieved that all danger of a conflict
between the %democrrtic majority OF
congress and the republican president
was ended.
The bill thus amended by Garfield
was finally passed by both branches,
aud the president was so forgetful of.
the dignity of his Office as to permit it
to be announced, before the bill came
into his hands, that he would veto 1t
and on what ground he would base
bis objections. The bill reached him
on Monday, and yesterday he respond
ed with his veto. When it is consid-
cred that the Garfield amendment or
political rider to which he now OBJ
iects, is in substantial accord with his
veto of the extra session, and that it is
a republican and not a democratic in
vention, the honesty and sincerity of
the executive will be Justly appre-
ciated. There is not a line in the veto
in which Hayes does not directly con-
tradict Hayes, both as a member of.
congress who uniformly supported re-
publican riders and as the president
who asked for substantially the same
law that he now rejects. Whetherhis
c~auseless veto is the result Of duplici-
ty or weakness, is of little moment to
the country, for the public wrong is
the same in either case; and that it is
the logical fruit of one or the other is
too clear to admit Of dispute. 1t is a
foolish veto, foolish in every sense. It
is foolish because it is likely to dis.
tract the business and peace of the
country; it is foolish as a party meas
ure, for it puts the republicans clearly
in the wrong, and it is foolish as an
attempt TO obstruct the enactment of
honest election laws.
The democrats have now a PLAIN
path before them. The president is
to be recognized as one of the integral
parts of the law making power, and
the rider to which he prctends to OBJ
ject should at once be sent to him as
a separate bill. If he shall veto Gen
eral Garfeld's election law, the re-
sp~onsibility will be fairly upon him
self and his party. The marshal's
deficiency bill should then be re-
enacted with the vetoed rider retained,
and if he shall again veto it, congress
will have done its duty, and all appro-
priations for hat department OF the
government should be resolutely re-
fused, 1t is the first time in an issue
with the present executive, in which
the democrats have been clearly and
.squarely right, and they can we'll af-
ford to go before the country on Cen
eral Garfeld's platform for honest
elections. 1t would seem that the fol-
lies Of the democrats at the extra SEES
sion had been transferred to the re-
publicans, and if they shall persist in
their madness, they must be prepared
to accept the popular Reproduction that
met the democrats in 1879.