The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1890-08-08
NO TROOPS AT POLLS.
THE REVISED FORCE BILL A MUCH
MILDER MEASURE.


Hoar Says the Provision for Trc.ps uo.
heen Stricken Out-Edmunds Still Holds
Out Against IA Change 81 the Rules.
The Washington correspondent of
the Macon Telegraph writes as fol-
lows:
The Republican Senators were not
numerous at church today. They
were at home, reading the sixty-page
substitute for the seventy-fve page
Davenport-Lodge force bill, which
Messrs. Hoar and Spooner have pre-
pared. The change were made by
these two Senate; without much
consultation with ,eir Republican
colleagues on the election committee,
Messrs. Frye, Evarts and Teller. but
III Difference to thei well-known de-
sres for milder IN asure. The es-
peclal desire of Mes s. Frye, Evarts
and Teller was for nn elimination of
the provision for tro >ps at the polls.
Ihls, Messrs. Hoar and Sherman say,
they have stricken out, but it does not
so appear from the copies of the reso
luton they hrve furnished their Re
publican colleagues. The section re-
ferred to, which e-enacts the civil
rights law. remains unaltered.
MUCH MILDER BILL.
The other important changes have
been stated as the work was being
done The bill is SO much milder
that it will receive all but few votes
at the caucus tomorrow night, provi-
ded Hoar and SpoOner demonstrate
that the provision for troops at the
pools is really out. But it's passage
is still most problematical, for it can
not be passed without changing the
rules, and Edmunds still leads q heroic
little band of opponents to any such
action. SO long at he stands firm it
will not be done.
ONE OF IT. WORST FEATURES.
'One of the most dangerous pro.
| visions of the Federal election bill is
the possibility of the appearance once
more OF United State troops at the
polls, which may be put under the
marching order of any United States
marshal or officer" said Representa-
tive Mutchler of Pennsylvania to the
| Sunday Gazette.
ut Is curious thing that the very
view which was enacted by the Re
publican Congress in the heat of war
times to put stop to the outrages
against the elective franchise com
mitted by United States troops on
the border states should furnish the
first pretext for the exercise of that
power, but so it is The act in cues
tion was designed to restrict the use
of troops. 1t has, however, been pros
htuted to partisan purposes, so as to
destroy the very object for which it
was enacted, and the little clause to
keep the peace at the polls has served
as preteXt for the numerous infu-
ences with state and federal elections
which were SO numerous until the
change Of policy inaugurated by the
Hayes administration.
NOT CONFINED TO THE SOUTH.
The use of United States troops
at the polls on election days has not
been confined to the South, as some
people suppose to be the case They
were used in Pennsylvania at q state
election in 1870. Without the request
of the State or municipal authorities,
an armed body of United States ma
rines were brought to the polls in the
fifth ward of Philadelphia, took pos.
session of them, kept them closed for
an hour, and exercised the right of
| challenging voters. Gen. John w.
Geary, distinguished Republican,
who was governor at the time, pro-
tested against this high-handed out
rage, and in message to the State
Legislature denounced it in vigorous
language. The occurrence cited in
Pennsylvania was at an election for
State officials.
TROOPS AT NEW YORK POOLS.
"A more dangerous attempt was
made in November, 1870, in New
York, under the provisions of an act
which it is now proposed to revive,
only in a more dangerous form, to
overawe voters and State officials, and
| but for tine firmness OF Governor Hoff-
man and the yielding of the President
to milder counsels on the evening be-
fore the election, scenes of riot and
Of bloodshed and conflict between
State and Federal troops might have
occurred that would have startled
the country"