Year: 1879

egarded as hardly less valuable or less sacred


There are many other important statutes con-
tanning provisions that are liable to be suS-
pended or annulled at the times and places Of
holding elections. II the bill before me should
become law. do not undertake to furnish
list of them. Many OF them-perhaps the most
Of them-have been set forth In the debates on
this measure. They relate to extradition, to
crimes against the election laws, to quarantine
regulations. to neutrality, to Indian reserva-
tions, to the civil rights of citzens and to other
subjects. In regard to them all, 1t may be safely
said, that the meaning and effect OF this bill IS
to take from the general government an impor
tant part of its power to enforce the laws:


Another grave objection to the bill Is It's 01S-
elimination In favor OF the state and against
the national authority. The presence or en-
gloyment Of the army or navy Of the United
the place where an election Is being held In
state to uphold the authority OF state govern
ment then and there in need Of such military
Intervention, but unlawful to uphold the au-
tholity OF the government OF the United states
then and there In need OF such military inter-
vention. Under this bill the presence and en-
states would be lawful, and might be necessary
to maintain the conduct OF q state election
against the domestic violence that would over
throw it, but would be unlawful to maintain
same local violence that overthrow IT.
This discrimination has never been attempted
In any previous legislation by Congress,
and is no more compatible with sound prin-
ciples of the Constitution or the necessary
maxims and methods Of our system Of govern
ment on occasions OF elections than at other
times. In the early legislation Of 1892 and Of
1895, by which the militia of the states was the
only military power reSorted to for the execu.
tfOn OF the constitutional powers in support OF
state sta or national authority, both functions OF
the government were put upon the same foot
ing. By the act Of 1901 the employment OF the
army and navy was authorized for the perform
ance Of both constitutional duties In the same
terms.


In all later statutes On the same subIect-mat-
ter the same measure OF authority to the gov
ernnent 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
elimination In favor OF the state and against
the national authority which this bill contains.


Under the sweeping terms OF the bill, the ma
t1onal COVER nment Is enectually shut out from
the exercise Of the right, and from the dis
charge OF the imperative duty TO use Its whole
Executive power whenever and wherever re-
quired for the enforcement of its laws at the
places and times where and when its elections
are held. The employment OF It's organized
armed forces for any such purpose would be an
offence against the law unless called for by, and
therefore upon permission OF, the authorities OF
the state In which the occasion arises. What
is this but the substitution OF the discretion OF
the state governments for the discretion Of the
government OF the United States as to the per-
foImance Of its own duties? In my judgment,
this is an abandonment OF its obligations by the
national governments sub0rdination Of ma
tional authority, and an intrusion OF state su-
pervision over national duties, which amounts,
In spirit and tendency, to state supremacy.


Though 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 is employed by the people OF this
country, shall find no difficulty In c0ncurrfng
In any additional legislation limited to that
object which does not interfere with the fndis-
peDsable exercise Of the powers Of the Govern
ment under the Constitution and laws.


RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
Executive Mansion. MAY 12. 1879.