Year: 1879

The minority of the committee on the judi
ciary, having had under consideration the
message of the President Disappearing House
bill No. 1882, entitled can act to prevent mill
tary interference with elections" submit the
following statement of the reasons why they
cannot concur with the views of the majority
of the committee: The repeated efforts in said
report to make it appear that a right or au-
thority to interfere with State elections, or
with the freedom or lawful conduct of any
election is claimed or asserted in any quarter,
is hardly deserving of serious notice. The
minority in Congress have made no such claim.
The right of federal supervision as contended
for applies to congressional elections only.
This is entirely ignored in the report of the
majority. Their report proceeds upon the
false assumption that the President advocates
the use of federal authority to supervise State
elections. No such claim is made in the mes
sage under consideration, or in any other mes
sage or utterance of the President; neither
does the message advocate or justify military
interference with the freedom of any election.
The veto of the President to prove the con-
trary is quoted 1t is historically true that
during the rebellion there was interference in
disloyalty existed. These were necessities
growing out of the nature of the conflict and
anomalous condition of the seeding and Dor
der States. They were in no senseacts of D


tlsanshlp Military orders were issued for the
purpose Dy ofllcers OF the army irrespective of
their party affiliations. The order of General
Mcclellan to General Banks, issued from the
headquarters of the Army of the Potomac
october ~, 1861, to protect Union voters in
Maryland, is quoted as an instance Before
the close OF the rebellion and while denoun-
cling the war to suppress it as failure, the
party now demanding this legislation selected
the author of the order quoted as its candidate
for the Presidency; it sought to make him
commander-in-chief of the army and navy 1t
Ill becomes party with such a record to in
dulge i'll such imputations and criticisms upon
a President whose administration has been
marked by so great forbearance toward the
people oil the States lately in rebellion who
mas IN no manner sanctioned military interfer-
ence with elections, for having dared to main-
tam his constitutional prerogative and to pre-
serve the right to use the military and naval
power whenever and wherever sanctioned by
the Constitution and laws. These and similar
orders undoubtedly exercised influence in Sc
curing the enactment of the law of 1865, which
prohibits the use of the army and navy at the
time and place of any general or special cleo
ton in any State except it be necessary to repel
the armed enemies of the United States or to
keep peace at the polls, and also prohibits any
military or naval officers from prescribing the
quallflcatlonS OF voters, or in any manner in
terfering with the free right of suffrage in any
State This law, with appropriate penalties
Tor Its violation, was approved by President
Lincoln, and since its enactment we do not
believe there has been any we'll grounded
cause OF complaint of military interference
with elections. No such instance is cited in
the report OF the majority. 1t refers, it is true,
to military interference during the rebellion,
and especially in 1868; all else is mere asser-
ton without instances of truth.


THE NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS.


The monstrous frauds perpetrated in the
State of New York in 1868 became the subject
of congressional investigation at the ensuing
session Of Congress, and were followed by
report suggestin. national legislation to guard
against a recurrence Of such frauds in future
elections of members of the House of Repre-
sentatives. The act of 1870, entitled "An act to
enforce the right of citizens of the United
States to vote in the several States of the Union
and for other purposes" was, to a considerable
extent, the outgrowth of such investigations.
The enforcement of the provisions of this act,
as amended in 1871, has had most wholesome
tendency to secure free and honest elections.
In the Presidential and congressional contest
OF 1876, as intensely exciting as any in our his
tory, It's enforcement purged the canvass of all
cuCCCoSiul dtlclllptS dI lrduu III IIlo same clUY
where outrages upon the ballot box and in
counting votes riot in the canvass of 1868.
A committee of the forty-fourth Congress was
charged with the investigation of the election
of 1876 in that city. In the report by the DEM
ocratic majority we find the following Ian
guage:-


This happy result "a free fair and honest election
was consequence of the cooperation between the of
hcia advisers of the city and the United States Off
Party organizations by their regulations and
orders, made the city police in action along with
the United States marshals Whether this work
which Is unexampled, should be accounted Repub-
lcan work through their federal election law the
work of local authorities organisms inspired by
desire for an honest vote among people who were
pecially jealous of it on account of what
ing elsewhere, one thing the committee report
That it approximated as TO perfection it
possible to do. There were no fights, no bayonets
no disturbances, conflicts of authority and none
of the concomitants which accompany fraud and en-
danger free institutions. The people of the country
owe tribute of respect to the police of city of
more than million, and to the United States Off
GERS, who numbered thousands for the harmony of
action between the various officers so as to illustrate
to all the world how an imperial city can conduct
herself under great excitement and in view of start
ling events.


CoGENT REASONING.


A statute which has been found the agent,
OF even o factor, in working out such benign
results as these, should not be dispensed with
This extra session opened with q bold avowal
that its repeal should be forced upon the Ex-
ecutive and the country as condition of grant
ing supplies Such was the dictate of caucus
to its partisans After months of failure to ac-
complsh its repeal, the design is now apparent
in some way to thwart its execution and open
wide the door for exclusive state supervision in
all elections. The present is not a propitious
time to attempt interference with its operation,
and effort is to be spared to render it inoper-
ative. The gravity of the situation is a suffic-
ent warning for the exercise of the utmost eau
ton. When it is more than intimated that the
execution of this law is to be forcibly resisted
in the next national contest, unless it is in the
meantime repealed, we cannot give our con-
sent to weaken or embarraSs in any respect
the power of civil officers of the United States
to enforce its provisions. 1t is to remain law
of the land. All efforts for its repeal
have been for the present abandoned. 1t
| is the constitutional duty of the President
| to see that it is faithfully executed.
| Many of its provisions are applicable to and
only to be enforced on the day an election is
! held. Why should the authority to use all
lawful and constitutional means to execute it
| be suspended or crippled on that day? To
swhatever extent this may be done, the law
as it is a law. for such days only.
Why should the day of an election be
excepted from the operation of this or any 9TH
| er statute? Surely, the need may be as great
| on that day as ON any other. A proposal 10
impose like restrictions at every place where a
court is to be held on the 4th of July OF the
Sth of January, or any other holi-
| day or anniversary to be celebrated
| or Observed would be met with the ieers or
contempt of all good men. The laws should
| be enforced and executed ON all days and at
all times and places. To abdicate the authori-
| ty of the government to execute its laws on the
| day of an election would be fatal mistake,
and would constitute precedent of most
| dangerous character.


| NATIONAL AND STATE AUTHORITY.


The reasoning of the report of the majority
eliminates at last in ar unconditional avowal
that no law of Congress can control or inter
fere with the officers of a State at any election
unless the state authorities invoke the aid OF
the general government, as provided in the


Constitution. This is asserting the pernicious
dogma of state supremacy in its most obnox-
ious form. The provision of the Constitution
| of the United States that it land the laws


which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall


be the supreme law of the land, anything in


the Constitution or laws of any State to the


contrary notwithstanding, is rudely thrust


aside and ignored and the exploded theory OF


paramount state sovereignty is substituted in


its stead That portion of the veto message on


this point is quoted and commended. Under


the Constitution it IS the duty of the Execu.


tive to apply the test of his own judgment
I.