Year: 1879

'

 fore mo should become law. I do not un, l dertake to furnish list of them Many of them, perhaps the most of them have been seI forth In the debates on this measure They relate to extrachtion, to crimes against the eiectlon laws, to quarantine regulations, to | neutrality, to Indian reservations to civil | rights of citizens, and to other subjects. Tn regard to them all it may be safely said that the meaning and effect ot this bill is to take rom the general government an important part of its power to enforce the laws

 Another grave objection to the bill is its uscrlnnnatlon m favor of the State and against the national authority. The presence or en- l ployment ot the army or navy of the United States Is lawful under the terms of this bill at the place where an election is being held in a State to uphold the authority of a State gov l ernment then and there in need of such mili tary intervention, but unlawful to uphold the authority Of the government of the United States then and there in need of such military | intervention.

 l Under this bill the presence and employment 1 oi the army or navy of the United States would be lawful and might be necessary to maintain the conduct ot State election against the domestic violence that would overthrow it. but would be unlawful to maintain the conduct of n national election against the same local vio- lence that would overthrow it. This dis crlmlnatlon has never been attempted in any previous legislation by Congress, and is no

 

 the Constitution or the necessary maxims and methods ot our system ot government on occasions of elections than at other times In the early legislation of l792 and of I795 by which the militia of the States was the only military power resorted to for the execution of the constitutional powers in support of State or national authority, both functions of govern ment were put upon the same footing By the act ot 1907, the employment of the army and navy was authorized for the performance ot both constitutional duties in the same terms

 In all later statutes on the same subject mat ter, the same measure of authority to the gov ernment has been accorded for the perform ance of both these duties No precedent has been found in any previous legislation, and no sufficient reason has been given for the dis crimination in favor of the State and against the national authority, which this bill con- tans.

 Under the sweeping terms of the bill, the national government is effectually shut out rom the exercise of the right and from the discharge of the imperative duty to use it's whole executive power whenever and wher- ever required for the enforcement of it's laws at the places and times where and when it's elections held. The employment of its organized armed force for any such purpose would be an offence against the law unless called tor by, and, therefore upon, permission ol the authorities of the State in which the occasion arises What is this but the substitu- uon ot the discretion of the State governments Tor the discretion of the government of the U ohlted States as to the performance of it's own duties? In my judgment, this is an abandon ment Of its obligations by the national govern mcnt, subordination of the national authority, and an intrusion of State supervision over national duties, which amounts in spirit and tendency to State supervision

 Though l believe that the existing statutes are abundantly adequate to completely prevent military interference with the elections, in the sense in which the phrase is used in the title of this bill, and as employed by the people of this country, shall find no difficulty in concurring in any additional legislation limited to that ob- Ject which does not interfere with tke indis- pensable exercise of the power of the govern ment under the Constitution and laws

 RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.

 Executive Mansion, May l2, 1S79