Year: 1879

REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO.
Report of the Democratic Majority of


the judiciary mIttee-C criticism of


the Presidents DisapprovaI OF the


Army BiII.


WAsHISGToN, June 11.-At meeting
Of the House Judiciary Committee to-day
Hon. j. Proctor Knott, the chairman,
submitted his report on the message Of the
President vetoing the bill to prevent mill.
tary interference with elections After
the reading Of the document some discus
sion arose, during which the republican
members Of the committee gave assurance
that they would not object to the presen-
tation Of the report to the House for the
purpose Of having il printed and recon-
mitted, the idea Of desiring this procedure
being to afford the minority an opportuni.
ty to prepare a statement embracing their
views upon the veto in question.


With the understanding that this course
should be pursued Chairman Knott was
authorized without dissent to report the
document to the House at the first oppor-
tunity, which he succeeded in securing
to day. The full text Of the report is as
| follows


REPORT or THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO.


The committee on the judiciary having
had under consideration the message Of
the President Of the United States assign
ing his objections to the approval of House
bill No. 1882, entitled can act to prevent
military interference with elections, would
respectfully submit the following report
therein:


The danger to be npprehended from the
presence Of armed troops at the ballot-box
may not now be discussed. They have
been repeatedly illustrated in the history
Of our own and other countries, if they are
not sufficiently obvious, indeed, to suggest
themselves instantly to the most ordinary
capacity. The present Secretary Of War
has laid II down in his work on The
American Law of Elections as an axiomat-
ic truth that "an armed force in the neigh.
borhood of the polls is almost Of necessity
mcnacc to the voters aud an lnterfer-
enoo with their freedom and indepen-
dence' and even the author Of the mes
sage under consideration himself admits
that any military interference whatever at
the polls is CONTRARY to the spirit of our
institutions and would tend TO destroy the
freedom of elections"


This truth was rendered so apparent by
the fagitious conduct of certain federal
officers, who arbitrarily assumed to control
the elections in several of the States in
1868, that Congress found it necessary to
pass an act which was approved by Presi-
dent Lincoln on the 9Th Of February,
1865, making It a highly penal oiIense for
any person engaged in the civil, military
or naval services OF the United States to
order, bring, keep or have under his au-
thority any troops or armed men at place
where an election is held In any State, un.
less it should be necessary to repel the
armed enemies of the United States or to
keep the peace at the polls, and the same
provision was subsequently, re.enactcd and
is now 10 force "a sections 2002 aud 552S
Of the Revised Statutes.


The words "or to keep the peace at tie
poll" were not in the original text of the
act, but were added in the Senate as an
amendment, which was earnestly opposed
by large majority of those who favored
the passage Of the bill, They maintained
that it would bC either ignoFautly or will.
fully misconstrued as an attempt by Con-
gress to confer upon federal officials au-
thority to perform the functions of con-
servators Of the peace at State elections,
and that under the pretext of doing so they
could eGectually destroy the freedom Of
the ballot and cvade the penalties pre-
scribed by the act with impunity; aud, in
the light Of recent history, il is unneces-
sary to enumerate the repeated and alarm
ing instances in which their apprehcnsions
in that regard have been more than justl-
fed


To remove that pretext, therefore, and
prevent, if possible, a recurrence Of such
dangerous practices in future, the present
Congress, 10 the exercise of its undoubted
right to prescribe the purposes for which
the land aud naval forces of the govern
ment shall be used, saw proper, in making
appropriations for the support Of the army
for the ensuing year, to strike those words
from the statutes, so that it should not
only be clearly unlawful, but n penal Of
fense for any federal official to employ
troops or armed men at State election
for any purpose whatever except to repel
the armed enemies Of the United States.
That bill the President returned to the
House Of Representatives without his sig
nature, not because the appropriations
were not amply sufficient for the purposes
intended, nor because it contained single
line that could be construed to impair the
efficiency Of either the army or the navy,
nor yet because he was able TO indicate
solitary sentence or syllable in any part of
it which he could say was in coutraven,
tion of any provision in the federal con,
stitution, but simply and solely because it
repealed the clause to which allusion has
just been made.


His reasons for objecting TO the bill on
that ground seem to have been these -
First, that in his Judgment the repeal Of
second, because it would prohibit all civil
officers Of the United States from employ
ing any adequate civil force" to enable
them TO preserve the peace aud execute
certain laws ut congressional elections; aud
third, because the manner in which the
repeal was proposed did not happen in that
particular instance to be in harmony with
the Executive taste, aud was therefore
considered by the author Of the message as
furnishing suitable occasion to deliver to
the House Of Representatives gratuitoas
lecture upon the methods in which it should
discharge its constitutional functions.


As the President has twice called the
attention of the House to these objections,
the first two may be referred to hereafter;
but with regard to the third, il may not be
improper to suggest here that the consti-
tuition authorizes each house TO determine
tho rules Of its own proceedings, and, with
out pansing to consider whether an nnso.
licited aud eensorioas suggestion by the
Executive to either Of them as to the pro-
per mode Of procedure in accordance with
such rules should or should not be regard
ed as an impertiuent interference with the
constitutional privileges Of the legislative