tions. But the last Congress, to remove all appre hension of such interference, added to this body of law section 15 of an act entitled. 'An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, and for other purposes,' approved June 18, 1878, which is as follows: SECTION 15 From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section, and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.' "This act passed the Senate, after full consideration, without a single vote recorded against it on its final passage, and, by a majority of more than twothirds, it was concurred in by the House of Representatives. "The purpose of the section quoted was stated in the Senate by one of its supporters as follows: "Therefore I hope, without getting into any controvesy about the past, but acting wisely for the future, that we shall take away the idea that the Army can be used by a general or special deputy marshal, or any marshal, merely for election purposes as a posse, ordering them about the polls or ordering them anywhere else, when there is no election going on, to prevent disorders or to suppress disturbances that should be suppressed by the peace officers of the State, or, if they must bring others to their aid, they'should summon the unorganized citizens, and not summon the of ficers and men of the Army as a posse comitatus to quell disorders, and thus get up a feeling which will be disastrous to peace among the people of the country.' "In the House of Representatives the object of the act of 1878 was stated by the gentleman who had it in charge in similar terms. He said: "But these are all minor points and insignificant questions compared with the great principle which was incorporated by the House in the bill in reference to the use of the Army in time of peace. The Senate had already conceded what they called, and what we might accept, as the principle, but they had stricken out the penalty, and had stricken out the word "expressly," so that the Army might be used in all cases where implied authority might be inferred. The House committee planted themselves firmly upon the doctrine that rather than yield this fundamental principle, for which for three years this House had struggled, they would allow the bill to fail, notwithstanding the reforms which we had secured, regarding these reforms as of but little consequence alongside of the great principle that the Army of the United States, in time of peace, should be under the control of Congress and obedient to its laws. After a long and protracted negotiation, the Senate committee have conceded that principle in all its length and breadth, including the penalty, which the Senate had stricken out. We bring you back, therefore, a report, with the alteration of a single word, which the lawyers assure me is proper to be made, restoring to this bill the principle for which we have contended so long, and which is so vital to secure the rights and liberties of the people. "Thus have we, this day secured to the people of this country the same great protection against a standing army which cost a struggle of two hundred years for the Commons of England to secure for the British people.' "From this brief review of the subject it sufficiently appears that, under existing laws, there can be no military interference with the elections. No case of such interference has, in fact, occurred since the passage of the act last referred to. No soldier of the United States has appeared under orders at any place of election in any State. No complaint even of the presence of the United States troops has been made in any quarter. It may, therefore, be confidently stated that there is no necessity for the enactment of section six of the bill before me to prevent military interfer ence with the elections. The laws already in force are all that is required for that end. "But that part of section six of this bill which is significant and vitally important, is the clause which, if adopted, will deprive the civil authorities of the United States of all power to keep the peace at the Congressional elections. The Congressional elections in every district, in a very important sense, are justly a matter of political interest and concern throughout the whole country. Each State, every political party, is entitled to the share of power which is conferred by the legal and Constitutional suffrage. It is the right of every citizen possessing the qualifications prescribed by law, to cast one unintimidated ballot, and to have his ballot honestly counted. So long as the exercise of this power and the enjoyment of this right are common and equal, practically as well as formally, submission to the results of the suffrage will be accorded loyally and cheerfully, and all the departments of government will feel the true vigor of the popular will thus expressed. "Two provisions of the Constitution authorize legislation by Congress for the regulation of the Congressional elections. "Section 4 of Article 1 of the Constitution declares"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations except as to the places of choosing Senators." "The fifteenth amendment of the Constitution is as follows: States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the "SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. invests the citizens of the United States with a new "The Supreme Court has held that this amendment Constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right the court declares to the elective franchise on account of race, color, or be exemption from discrimination in the exercise of previous condition of servitude. The power of Congress to protect this right by appropriate legislation is expressly affirmed by the court. and honest elections is necessary, as experience has "National legislation to provide safeguards for free shown, not only to secure the right to vote to the enfranchised race at the South, but also to prevent fraudulent voting in the large cities of the North. Congress has, therefore, exercised the power conferred by the Constitution, and has enacted certain laws to prevent discriminations on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and to punish fraud, violence, and intimidation at Federal elections. Attention is called to the following sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, viz.: "Section 2004, which guarantees to all citizens the right to vote without distinction on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "Section 2005 and 2006, which guarantee to all citizens equal opportunity, without discrimination, to perform all the acts required by law as a prerequisite or qualification for voting. "Section 2022, which authorizes the United States marshall and his deputies to keep the peace and preserve order at the Federal elections. "Section 2024, which expressly authorizes the United States marshal and his deputies to summon a posse comitatus whenever they or any of them are forcibly resisted in the execution of their duties under the law, or are prevented from executing such duties by violence. "Section 5522, which provides for the punishment of the crime of interfering with the supervisors of elections and deputy marshals in the discharge of their duties at the elections of Representatives in Congress. "These are some of the laws on this subject which it is the duty of the Executive Department of the Government to enforce. The intent and effect of the sixth section of this bill is to prohibit all the civil officers of the United States, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, from employing any adequate civil force for this purpose at the place where their enforcement is most necessary, namely, at the places where the Congressional Elections are hell. Among the most valuable enactments to which I have referred are those which protect the supervisors of Federal elections in the discharge of their duties at the polls. If the proposed legislation should become the law there will be no power vested in any officer of the Government to protect from violence the officers of the United States engaged in the discharge of their duties. Their rights and duties under the law will remain, but the National Government will be powerless to enforce its own statutes. The States may employ both military and civil power to keep the peace, and to enforce the laws at State elections. It is now proposed to deny to the United States even the necessary civil authority to protect the national elections. No sufficient reason has been given for this discrimination in favor of the State and against the national authority. If well-founded objections exist against the present national election laws, all good citizens should unite in their amendment. The laws providing the safeguards of the elections should be impartial, just, and efficient. They should, if possible, be so non-partisan and fair in their operation that the minority-the party out of power-will have no just grounds to complain. The present laws have, in practice, unquestionably conduced to the prevention of fraud and violence at the elections. In several of the States members of different political parties have applied for the safeguards which they furnish. It is the right and duty of the National Government to enact and enforce laws which will secure free and fair congressional elections The laws now in force should not be repealed, except in connection with the enactment of measures which will better accomplish that important end. Believing that section six of the bill before me will weaken, if it does not altogether take away, the power of the National Government to protect the Federal elections by the civil authorities, I am forced to the conclusion that it ought not receive my approval. "This section is, however, not presented to me as a separate and independent measure, but is, as has been stated, attached to the bill making the usual annual appropriations for the support of the Army. It makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected with the use of the Army. It prohibits, under heavy penalties, any person engaged in the civil service of the United States from having any force at the place of any election prepared to preserve order, to make arrests, to keep the peace, or in any manner to enforce the laws. This is altogether foreign to the purpose of an army appropriation bill. The practice of tacking to appropriation bills measures, not pertinent to such bills did not prevail until more than forty years after the adoption of the Constitution. It has become a common practice. All parties when in power have adopted it. Many abuses and great waste of public money have in this way crept into appropriation bills. The public opinion of the country is against it. The States which have recently adopted constitutions have generally provided a remedy for the evil by enacting that no law shall contain more than one subject, which shall be plainly expressed in its title. The constitutions of more than half of the States contain substantially this provision. The public welfare will be promoted in many ways by a return to the early practice of the Government, and to the true principle of legislation, which requires that every measure shall stand or fall according to its own merits. If it were understood that to attach to an appropriation bill a measure irrelevant to the general object of the bill would imperil and probably prevent its final passage and approval, a valuable reform in the parliamentary practice of Congress would be accomplished. The best justification that has been offered for attaching irrelevant riders to appropriation bills is that it is done for convenience sake, to facilitate the passage of measures which are deemed expedient by all the branches of Government which participate in legislation. It cannot be claimed that there is any such reason for attaching this amendment of the election laws to the Army Appropriation Bill. The history of the measure contradicts this assumption. A majority of the House of Representatives in the last Congress was in favor of Section 6 of this bill. It was known that a majority of the Senate was opposed to it, and that as a separate measure it could not be adopted. It was attached to the Army appropriation Bill to compel the Senate to assent to it. It was plainly announced to the Senate that the Army appropriation Bill would not be allowed to pass unless the proposed amendments of the election laws were adopted with it. The Senate refused to assent to the bill on account of this irrelevant section. Congress thereupon adjourned without passing an appropriation bill for the Army, and the present extra session of the Forty-sixth Congress became necessary to furnish the means to carry on the Government. "The ground upon which the action of the House of Representatives is defended has been distinctly stated by many of its advocates A week before the close of the last session of Congress the doctrine in question was stated by one of its ablest defenders, as follows: "It is our duty to repeal these laws. It is not worth while to attempt the repeal except upon an appropria tion bill. The Republican Senate would not agree to, nor the Republican President sign, a bill for such repeal. Whatever objection to legislation upon appropriation bills may be made in ordinary cases does not apply where free elections and the liberty of the citizens are concerned. * * * We have the power to vote money; let us annex conditions to it, and insist upon the redress of grievances.' "By another distinguished member of the House it was said: "The right of the representatives of the people to withhold supplies is as old as English Liberty. History reords numerous instances where the Commons, feeling that the people were oppressed by laws that the Lords would not consent to repeal by the ordinary methods of legislation, obtained redress at last by refusing appropriations unless accompanied by relief measures.' "That a question of the gravest magnitude, and new in this country, was raised by this course of proceeding, was fully recognized also by its defenders in the Senate. It was said by a distinguished Senator: "Perhaps no greater question, in the form we are brought to consider it, was ever considered by the American Congress in time of peace; for it involves not merely the merits or demerits of the laws which the House bill proposes to repeal, but involves the rights, the privileges, the powers, the duties of the two branches of Congress, and of the President of the United States. It is a vast question; it is a question whose importance can scarcely be estimated; it is s question that never yet has been brought so sharply before the American Congress and the American people as it may be now. It is a question which, sooner or later, must be decided, and the decision must determine what are the powers of the House of Representatives under the Constitution, and what is the duty of that House in the view of the framers of that Constitution according to its letter and its spirit. Mr. President, I should approach this question, if I were in the best possible condition to speak and argue it, with very great diffidence, and certainly with the utmost anxiety, for no one can think of it as long and as carefully as I have thought of it, without seeing that we are at the beginning, perhaps, of a struggle that may last as long in this country as a similar struggle lasted in what we are accustomed to call the mother land. There the struggle lasted for two centuries before it was ultimately decided. It is not likely to last so long here, but it may last until every man in this chamber is in his grave. It is the question whether or no the House of Representatives has a right to say, "We will grant supplies only upon condition that grievances are redressed. We are the representatives of the tax-payers of the Republic; we, the House of Representatives, alone have the right to originate money bills; we, the House of Representatives, have alone the right to originate bills which grant the money of the people; the Senate represents States; we represent the tax-payers of the Republic; we, therefore, by the very terms of the Constitution, are charged with the duty of originating the bills which grant the money of the people. We claim the right, which the House of Commons in England established after two centuries of contest, to say that we will not grant the money of the people unless there is a redress of grievances.' 66 Upon the assembling of this Congress, in pursu ance of a call for an extra session, which was made necessary by the failure of the Forty-fifth Congress to make the needful appropriations for the support of the Government, the question was presented whether the attempt made in the last Congress to engraft, by construction, a new principle upon the Constitution should be persisted in or not. This Congress has ample opportunity and time to pass the appropriation bills, and also to enact any political measures which may be determined upon in separate bills by the usual and orderly methods of proceeding. But the majority of both Houses have deemed it wise to adhere to the, what I can to preserve, unimpaired, the constitutional principles asserted and maintained in the last Con- powers and equal independence, not merely of the Exgress by the majority of the House of Representatives. ecutive, but of every branch of the Government, which That principle is that the House of Representatives will be imperiled by the adoption of the principle of has the sole right to originate bills for raising revenue, this bill, I desire earnestly to urge upon the House of and therefore has the right to withhold appropriations Representatives a return to the wise and wholesome upon which the existence of the Government may de usage of the earlier days of the Republic, which expend, unless the Senate and the President shall give cluded from appropriation bills all irrelevant legisla their assent to any legislation which the House may tion. By this course you will inaugurate an imporsee fit to attach to appropriation bills. To establish, tant reform in the method of Congressional legislation; this principal is to make a radical, dangerous, and un- your action will be in harmony with the fundamental constitutional change in the character of our institu- principles of the Constitution and the patriotic sentitions. The various Departments of the Government, ment of nationality which is their firm support; and and the Army and Navy, are established by the Consti- you will restore to the country that feeling of confitution, or by laws passed in pursuance thereof. Their dence and security and the repose which are so essenduties are clearly defined, and their support is care- tial to the prosperity of all of our fellow-citizens. fully provided for by law. The money required for "RUTHERFORD B. HAYES. this purpose has been collected from the people, and “EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 29, 1879." is now in the Treasury, ready to be paid out as soon as the appropriation bills are passed. Whether appro-Votes in House and Senate on passage of priations are made or not, the collection of the taxes will go on. The public money will accumulate in the Treasury. It was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution that any single branch of the Government should have the power to dictate conditions upon which this treasure should be applied to the purpose for which it was collected. Any such intention, if it had been entertained, would have been plainly expressed in the Constitution. the Bill, and in House on passing it, notwithstanding the veto. First House Vote. The vote in the House, April 5, 1879, on the passage of the Army Bill was: Evins, Ewing, Felton, E. B. Finley, FORD, Forney, Frost, YEAS-Messrs. Aiken, Armfield, Atherton, Atkins, "That a majority of the Senate now concurs in the Bachman, Beitzhoover, Bicknell, Blackburn, Bliss Blount, claim of the House adds to the gravity of the situation, Bouck, Bragg, Bright, Buckner, Cabell, J. W. Caldwell, but does not alter the question at issue. The new Carlisle, Chalmers, Clardy, J. B. Clark, Jr., Clymer, Cobb, doctrine, if maintained, will result in a consolidation of unchecked and despotic power in the House of Rep-berson, Davidson, J. J. Davis, L. H. Davis, De La MATYE, Coffroth, Colerick, Converse, Cook, Covert, Cravens, Culresentatives. A bare majority of the house will be-, come the Government. The Executive will no longer be what the framers of the Constitution intended, an equal and independent branch of the Government. It is clearly the constitutional duty of the President to exercise his discretion and judgment upon all bills presented to him without constraint or duress from any other branch of the Government. To say that a majority of either or both of the Houses of Congress may insist upon the approval of a bill under the penalty of stopping all of the operations of the Government for want of the necessary supplies, is to deny to the Executive that share of the legislative power which is plainly conferred by the second section of the seventh article of the Constitution. It strikes from the Constitution the qualified negative of the President. It is said that this should be done because it is the peculiar function of the House of Representatives to represent the will of the people. But no single branch or department of the Government has exclusive authority to speak for the American people. The most authentic and solemn expression of their will is contained in the Constitution of the United States. By that Constitution they have ordained and established a Government, whose powers are distributed among co-ordinate branches, which, as far as possible, consistently with a harmonious cooperation, are absolutely independent of each other. The people of this country are unwilling to see the supremacy of the Constitution replaced by the omnipotence of any one department of the Government. NAYS-Messrs. N. W. Aldrich, W. Aldrich, Anderson, Bailey, J. H. Baker, Ballou, Barber, BARLOW, Belford, Bingham, Blake, Bowman, Boyd, Brewer, Briggs, Brigham, Browne, Burrows, Calkins, Camp, Cannon, Carpenter, Caswell, Chittenden, Claflin, R. Clark, Conger, Cowgill, Crapo, Crowley, Daggett, G. R. Davis, Deering, Dunnell, Dwight, Einstein, Errett, Farr, Ferdon, Field, Fisher, FORSYTHE, Fort, Frye, Garfield, Godshalk, Hall, J. Hammond, B. W. Harris, Haskell, Hawk, Hawley, Hayes, Hazelton, Heilman, Henderson, Hiscock, Horr. "The enactment of this bill into a law will establish a Houk, Humphrey, James, Jorgensen, Joyce, Keifer, precedent which will tend to destroy the equal inde- KELLEY, Ketcham, Killinger, Lapham, Lindsey, Lorpendence of the several branches of the Government. ing, Marsh, Mason, McCoid, McCook, McGowan, MeIts principle places, not merely the Senate and the Ex- Kinley, Miles, Mitchell, Monroe, Morton, Neal, Newecutive, but the Judiciary also, under the coercive dic-berry, Norcross, O'Neill, Orth, Osmer, Overton, Pierce, tation of the House. The House alone will be the Pound, Prescott, Price, Reed, W. W. Rice, Richardson, judge of what constitutes a grievance, and also of the Robeson, G. D. Robinson, W. A. Bussell, T. Ryan, Sapp. means and measures of redress. An Act of Congress to Shallenberger, Sherwin, A. H. Smith, Starin, J. W. protect elections is now the grievance complained of. Stone, Thomas, A. Townsend, Tyler, J. T. UpdeBut the House may, on the same principle, determine graff, T. Updegraff, Urner, Valentine, Van Aernam. that any other Act of Congress, a treaty made by the Voorhis, J. Van Voorhis, Wait, Ward, Washburn, H. President with the advice of the Senate, a nomination White, Wilber, C. G. Williams, Willits, W. A. Wood— or appointment to office, or that a decision or opinion of the Supreme Court is a grievance, and that the measure of redress is to withhold the appropriations required for the support of the offending branch of the Government. Believing that this bill is a dangerous violation of the spirit and meaning of the constitution, I am compelled to return it to the House in which it originated without my approval. The qualified negative with, which the Constitution invests the President is a trust that involves a duty which he cannot decline to perform. With a firm and conscientious purpose to do 122. The Senate vote. The bill passed the Senate April 25, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Bailey, Bayard, Beck, Butler, Call, Cockrell, Coke, DAVIS of Illinois, Eaton, Farley, Garland, Gordon, Groome, Grover, Hampton, Harris, Hereford, Hill of Georgia, Houston, Johnston, Jonas, Jones of Florida, Kernan, Lamar, McDonald, Mazey, Morgan, Pendleton, Randolph, Ransom, Saulsbury, Slater, Thurman, Vance, Vest, Voorhees, Walker, Wallace, Whyte, Williams, Withers-41. NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Bell, Blaine, Booth, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron of Wisconsin, Carpenter, Chandler, Conkling, Dawes, Edmunds, Ferry, Hamlin, Hill of Colorado, Ingalls, Jones of Nevada, Kellogg, Kirkwood, Logan, McMillan, Morrill, Paddock, Platt, Plumb, Rollins, Saunders, Teller-30. it originated, with the following objections to its ap proval: House vote on passing the bill, notwith- tions by the military or naval forces of the United standing the veto. May 1, in the House, on the question of passing the bill over the veto, the bill failed (two-thirds required) by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Acklen, Aiken, Armfield, Atherton, Atkins, R. L. T. Beale, Belzhoover, Bicknell, Blackburn, Bliss, Bragg, Bright, Buckner, Cabell, J. W. Caldwell, Carlisle, Chalmers, A. A. Clark, J. B. Clark, Jr., Clymer, Cobb, Coffroth, Colerick, Converse, Covert, S. S. Cox, Cravens, Culberson, Davidson, L. H. Davis, DE LA MATYR, Deuster, Dibrell, Dickey, Dunn, Elam, Ellis, J. H. Evins, Ewing, Felton, Forney, Frost, Geddes, Gibson, Gunter, N. J. Hammond, J. T. Harris, Henkle, Henry, Herbert, Herndon, Hill, Hooker, Hostetler, House, Hurd, Johnston, Kimmel, King, Kitchin, Klotz, Knott, LADD, Le Fevre, Lewis, Manning, B. F. Martin, McKenzie, McLane, McMillin, Mills, Morrison, Muldrow, Myers, New, O'Brien, O'Connor, O'Reilly, Persons, Phister, Poehler, Reagan, J. S. Richardson, Richmond, E. W. Robertson, Ross, Rothwell, Samford, Sawyer, Scales, Shelley, Simonton, J. W. Singleton, O. R. Singleton, Slemons, H. B. Smith, W. E. Smith, Sparks, Speers, Springer, Steele, Stephens, STEVENSON, Talbott, Taylor, P. B. Thompson, Jr., Tillman, R. W. Townshend, O. Turner, T. Turner, Vance, Waddill, A. J. Warner, Wellborn, Whiteaker, Whitthorne, T. Williams, A. S. Willis, Wise, WRIGHT, C. Young -121. NAYS-Messrs. N. W. Aldrich, W. Aldrich, PART III. "In the communication sent to the House of Repre House without my approval the bill entitled An Act sentatives on the 29th of last month, returning to the making Appropriations for the Support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes,' I endeavored to show by quotations from the statutes of the United States now in force, and by a brief statement of facts in regard to recent elections in the several States, that no additional legislation was necessary to prevent interference with the elecStates. The fact was presented in that communication that at the time of the passage of the act of June 18, 1878, in relation to the employment of the army as a posse comitatus or otherwise, it was maintained by its friends that it would establish a vital and fundamental principle, which would secure to the people protection against a standing army. The fact was also referred to that, since the passage of this act, Conheld throughout the Union, and that in no instance gressional, State, and municipal elections have been has complaint been made of the presence of United States soldiers at the polls. interference whatever at the polls is contrary to the "Holding, as I do, the opinion that any military spirit of our institutions, and would tend to destroy the freedom of elections, and sincerely desiring to concur with Congress in all of its measures, it is with very great regret that I am forced to the conclusion that the bill before me is not only unnecessary to prevent such interference, but is a dangerous depart ure from long-settled and important Constitutional principles. force at the elections is not doubtful. No intimida"The true rule as to the employment of military tion or coercion should be allowed to control or influence citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, whether it appears in the shape of combinations of evil-disposed persons, or of armed bodies of the militis of a State, or of the military force of the United States. "The elections should be free from all forcible inhensions of such interference. No soldiers, either of terference, and, as far as practicable, from all appre the Union or of the State militia, should be present at the polls to take the place or perform the duties of the be no violation of this rule under orders from me ordinary civil police force. There has been and will during this administration. But there should be no denial of the right of the national Government to employ its military force on any day and at any place in case such employment is necessary to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States. "The bill before me is as follows: bring to, or employ at, any place where a general or "Be it enacted, &c., That it shall not be lawful to special election is being held in a State, any part of the Army or Navy of the United States, unless such force be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to enforce section 4, article 4, of the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, on application of the Legislature or executive of the State where such force is to be used; and so much of all laws as is inconsistent herewith is hereby repealed.' "It will be observed that the bill exempts from the general prohibition against the employment of military force at the poles two specified cases. These exceptions recognize and concede the soundness of the Mili-principle that military force may properly and constitutionally be used at the place of elections, when such use is necessary to enforce the Constitution and the extensive and far-reaching, that its adoption will serilaws. But the excepted cases leave the prohibition so ously impair the efficiency of the executive depart Veto of the Bill to Prohibit The following is the President's veto: "TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: "After a careful consideration of the bill entitled An Act to Prohibit Military Interference at Elections,' I return it to the House of Representatives, in which ment of the Government. "The first act expressly authorizing the use of military power to execute the laws was passed almost as early as the organization of the Government under the Constitution and was approved by President Washington, May 2, 1792. It is as follows: "SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a State where such combination may happen shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the Legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other State or States most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.' "In 1795 this provision was substantially re-enacted in a law which repealed the act of 1792. In 1807 the following act became the law by the approval of President Jefferson: "That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States or of any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the prerequisites of the law in that respect.' "By this act it will be seen that the scope of the law of 1795 was extended so as to authorize the National Government to use not only the militia, but the Army and Navy of the United States in causing the laws to be duly executed.' "The important provisions of the acts of 1792, 1795, and 1807, modified in its terms from time to time to adapt it to the existing emergency, remained in force until by an act approved by President Lincoln, July 29, 1861, it was re-enacted substantially in the same language in which it is now found in the Revised Statutes, viz.: "SECTION 5298. Whenever by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to enforce by the ordinary course of judical proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of any or all the States, and to employ such parts of the land and naval forces of the United States, as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, or to suppress such rebellion in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed.' "This ancient and fundamental law has been in force from the foundation of the Government. It is now proposed to abrogate it on certain days and at certain places. In my judgment no fact has been produced which tends to show that it ought to be repealed or suspended for a single hour at any place in any of the States or Territories of the Union. All the teachings of experience in the course of our history are in favor of sustaining its efficiency unimpaired. On every occasion when the supremacy of the Constitution has been resisted, and the perpetuity of our institutions imperilled, the principle of this statute, enacted by the fathers, has enabled the Government of the Union to maintain its authority and to preserve the integrity of the nation. "At the most critical periods of our history my predecessors in the executive office have relied on this great principle. It was on this principle that President Washington suppressed the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794. ** "In 1806, on the same principle, President Jefferson broke up the Burr conspiracy by issuing orders for the employment of such force, either of the regulars or of the militia, and by such proceedings of the civil authorities * * as might enable them to suppress effectually the further progress of the enterprise.' And it was under the same authority that President Jackson crushed nullification in South Carolina, and that President Lincoln issued his call for troops to save the Union in 1861. On numerous other Occasions of less significance, under probably every administration, and certainly under the present, this power has been usefully exerted to enforce the laws, without objection by any party in the country, and almost without attracting public attention. "The great elementary Constitutional principle which was the foundation of the original statute of | 1792, and which has been its essence in the various forms it has assumed since its first adoption, is that the Government of the United States possesses under the Constitution, in full measure, the power of selfprotection by its own agencies, altogether independent . of State authority, and, if need be, against the hostil ity of State governments. It should remain embodied in our statutes unimpaired, as it has been from the very origin of the Government. It should be regarded as hardly less valuable or less sacred than a provision of the Constitution itself. "There are many other important statutes containing provisions that are liable to be suspended or annulled at the times and places of holding elections, if the bill before me should become a law. I do not undertake to furnish a 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 reservations, to the civil rights of citizens, and to other subjects. In regard to them all, it may be safely said that the meaning and effect of this bill is to take from the General Government an important part of its power to enforce the laws. "Another grave objection to the bill is its discrimination in favor of the State and against the National authority. The presence or employment of 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 government then and there in need of such military intervention, but unlawful to uphold the authority of the Government of the United States, then and there in need of such military intervention. Under this bill the presence or employment of the Army or Navy of the United States would be lawful, and might be necessary to maintain the conduct of a State election against the domestic violence that would overthrow it, but would be unlawful to maintain the conduct of a national election against the same local violence that would overthrow it. This discrimination has never been attempted in any previous legislation by Congress, and is no more compatible with sound principles of the Constitution or the necessary maxims and methods of our system of government on occasions of elections than at other times. In the early legislation of 1792 and of 1795, 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 the Government were put upon the same footing. By the act of 1807 the employment of the Army and Navy was authorized 'for the performance of both Constitutional duties in the same terms. "In all later statutes on the same subject-matter the same measure of authority to the government has been accorded for the performance of both these duties. No precedent has been found in any previous legislation, and no sufficient reason has been given for the discrimination in favor of the State and against the national authority which this bill contains. "Under the sweeping terms of the bill the national government is effectually shut out from the exercise of the right and from the discharge of the imperative duty to use its whole executive power whenever and wherever required for the enforcement of its laws at the places and times when and where its selections are held. The employment of its organized armed forces for any such purpose would be an offense against the law unless called for by, and, therefore, upon permission of, the authorities of the State in which the oc casion 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 performance of its own duties? In my judgment this is an abandonment of its obligations by the national government; a subordination of national authority and an intrusion of State supervision over national duties which amounts, in spirit and tendency, to State supremacy. "Though I 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, I shall find no difficulty in concurring in any additional legislation limited to that object which does not interfere with the indispensable exercise of the powers of the Government under the Constitution and laws. "RUTHERFORD B. HAYES." |