Year: 1879




Of his own Official record, if not to the or
dinary proprieties which have hitherto
characterized communications between the
chief executive magistrate and the supreme
legislature of the country if he should
again deem it his duty to volunteer his
advice to the House Of Representatives as
TO its mode of procedure, or to comment
officially upon the opinions of its indiyid-
ual members.


Impressed, however, with the import
ance Of removing the last shadow of pre-.
text for any interference whatever with
State elections by the armed forces Of the
United States, and desiring to obyiate, if
possible, the Presidents objections to the
measure already proposed for that purpose,
the House Of Representatives promptly
passed a separate bill which was as prompt
ly concurred in by the Senate, simply pro-
viding that it should not be lawful to bring
to or employ at any place where general
or special election is being held in any
State any part Of the army or navy, unless
such force should be necessary to repel the
armed enemies Of the United States or to
enforce section 1, article 4, of the consti-
tuition and the laws made in pursuance
thereof, and repeating all provisions of law
inconsistent with the purposes Of the bill.


Having been thus presented as an indie.
pendent proposition, disconnected from any
appropriation bill, and containing no re-
ference to any supposed power in the civil
authorities Of the United States "to employ
an adequate cira force" to keep the peace
at congressional elections, which the Pres
ident seems specially anxious should not
be infringed, it was confidently expected
that this would receive the Executive sane
ton. 1t was speedily returned, however,
with a message assigning his objections to
its approval, which are now to be consid.
cred


The FIRST of these objections is a simple
repetition of one assigned in the message
yetoing the army appropriation bilI-that
as measure to prevent military interier-
cnce at the polls the bill was unnecessary.
Whether the opinions Of majority of the
representatives Of the people and of the
States as to the necessity for cnaeting or
repeating law is entitled to any consid-
Grafton in the estimation of the chief ex-
ecutige magistrate is of course matter to
be determined by himself, but no one can
read the two messages together without
being struck by the marked difference ia
tone of the two documents in respect to
this objection.


In the message Of April 20, after quot
Ing at length the various statutes in rela-
tion to the subject, and one in particular
upon the construction and effect of tho
fifteenth section Of the army appropria.
tion bill, approved june IS, 1873, making
il penal ofeuse to employ any portion
Of the army as a posse comitatus or other
wise Tor tho purpose of enforcing the laws
except 10 cases expressly authorized by
the constitution or act OF Congress, tho
writer adds :-"Prom this brief review Of
the subject it sufficiently appears that un-
der existing laws there can be no military
interference with elections. Il
may, therefore, be confidently stated that
there is no necessity for the enactment of
section 6 Of the bill before me to prevent
military interference with elections. The
laws In force arc all that are required to
that end.


He then proceeds to state distinctly
what appears TO have been the main OBJ
lection to the section, namely, that it
would prohibit the civil officers of the
United States from employing adequate
civil force to enable them to keep tho
peace aud execute certain laws at what be
was pleased to term national elections.
Considered therefore, as a candid and in-
genuons paper, the inevitable conclusion
to be drawn from 1t was that all authority
to employ the military power of the United
States at the polls, even 10 aid Of civil Of.
fcers, was tacitly, il not expressly abjured.
There is no such disclaimer, however, in
the message under consideration. While
It Is admitted that elections SHOULD he freq
from all forcible interference, aud that SOL
diers ought not to be present at the polls
and perform the duties Of the ordinary
civil police force, there is no intimation
that it would be unlawful for them to do
so, or that the President or any military
officer Of the United States might not so
employ them with impunlty and eyadp
any penalty therefor, under the pretenso
that it was necessary to preserve the peace.
On the contrary, the clear inference to
be drawn from the entire document is,
that such use Of the military power Of
the Federal government is not only legal,
but, under cortaia circumstances, may be
eminently proper. But there is where the
danger of military interference with cleo.
tions becomes not only possible, but almost
inevitable, as has been abundantly shown
10 startling instances in our own recent
history. In times of high political excite
ment in localities where tie coutending
parties are nearly equally balanced, or
where the INSCRIPTIONS leaders of a cor
rupt minority, in political accord with
those who have control Of troops, are dc.
termined to defeat the popular will by
bringing in force to the assistance Of fraud
appreheDsions Of riots and disturbances
will be easily simulated and bayoneis read.
lily furnished, under the pretext Of keep
ing the peace at the polls, but really to in
timidate the voter and destroy the free
dom Of the ballot.


The entire argument against the neccs-
ity Of the bill is therefore LEFT to rest upon
the Presidents reiterated assertion that
troops have not been and viii not be used
to Interfere with any State election during
his administration, That assertion was
no doubt sincere, but unfortunately for its
validity as reason for refusing to approve
bill designed for the protection of future
generations as well as this, this official
term Of the present Executive is limited,
and he may be succeeded in the exalted
position he occupies by one who will feel
less scrupalous regard for the freedom
and purity Of the ballot than lie processes
himself to entertain. Moreover he is hu-
man and liable to change, aud no one but
himself can know to what extent The par.
tisan debates in Congress may have inilu.
euced his opinions even upon the questions
involved 10 the veto under eonsidera-
ton. The subjects Of despot must depend
for security upon the grace Of their master,
but free people, If they would remain
free, will insist upon the guarantees Of
positive law.


The next objection 10 the annravsi ~