Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 13, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 May 1879 — VETOED. [ARTICLE]

VETOED.

Message of President Hayes Vetoing the Army Appropriation Bill, To the House or Representatives: I havo maturely considered the important questions presented in a bill entitled “ An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 3J, 1889, and for other purposes,” and I no* return it to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with my objections to its approval The bill provides, in, the usual form, for the appropriation required for the support of the army during the next fiscal year. If it contained no other provisions it would receive my prompt approval. It includes, however, further legislation which, attached as it is to appropriatiins which are requisite for the efficient performance of some of the mo it necessary duties of the Government, involves questions of the gravest character. The sixth section of the bill is amendatory of a statute now in force in regard to the authority of persons iu the civil, military and naval service of the United States at the place where any general or special election is held in any State. This statute was adopted Feb. 25,1885, after a pro'raoted debate in the Senate, and almost without opposition in the House of Representatives, by the concurrent votes of both of the leading political parties of the country, and becanss a law by the approval of President Lincoln. In addition to the sections of the statute above quoted, the following provisions of the law relating to the use of the military power at ejections are now in force: Section 2.003. No or of the army or navy of the United state* Khali pr< sc Ibe or Ox. or attempt to prescribe or Ox, by proclamation, order or otb.-r----wine. the qualification* of voter* in any State; br tn any manner interfere with the freedom of any election, in any State, or with tlio exercise of the free rights of sutTraxe in any State. Section 5 519. Every officer or other person In the military or naval service, who. by force, threat, intimldation, order, advice or otherwise, prevent*, or attempts to prevent, any qualified voter of any btalF from freely exercising the right of suffrage at any general or special election in such Statu shall be fined not more than fifi.'lKl, and imprisoned at hard labor not more than five years. Section 5.530. Every ofiicer of the army or navy who prescribes, or fixes, or attempts to prescrilie or fix, whether by proclamation, order or otherwise. the qualifications of voters at any election in any State, shall be punished as provided in the preceding section. Section 5,531. Every officer or other person in the military or naval service, who. by force, threat, intimidation or otherwise, compels, or attempts to compel, any officer holding an election in- any State to receive the vote from a person not legally qualified to vote, or who Imposes or attempts to impose any regulations for conducting any general or special election in any State different from those prescribed by law, or who interferes in any manner with any officer of election in the discharge of his duty, shall be punished as prescribed in section 5.229. Section 5.532, Every person convicted of any of the offenses specified in the preceding sections shall, in addition to the punishments therein severally prescrilwd, be disqualified from holding any officeof honor, profiler trust under the United States; bnt nothing in those sections shall be construed to prevent any officer, soldier, sailor or marine from exercising the right of suffrage in any election district to which lie may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State in which he offers to vote. Section 5,528. Every officer of she army or navy, or other person in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, who orders, brings, keeps or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held in any State, unless such force bo necessary to repel rnued enemies of the United Mt*tes, or to keep peace at the polls, shall be fined not more than $5/4)0 and suffer imprisonment at hard labor not less than throe months nor more than five years, was re-enacted iu 1874, in the Revised Statutes of the United States. Si ction 2,<412. No military or naval officer orother person engaged in civil, military or naval service of the United States ahall order, bring, keep or have under Ills authority or control any troops or armed men at tbe place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United Stalos. The amendment proposed in this statute in the bill bet- Te me omits from both of the foregoing sections the words * or to keep the peace at the polls.” The effect of the adoption of this amendment may be considered—First, upon the right of the United States Government to use military force to keep peace at elections for members of Congress; and, second, upon the right of the Government by civil authority to protect these elections from violence and fraud. The foregoing enactments would seem to bo sufficient tn prevent military interference with elections; but the last Congress, to remove all apprehension of such .interference, added to this body of the law section 15 of the act entitled “An act making an appropriation 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: Skc. 15. From and after the pasaago of tills act It ahall not be lawful to employ any part of the army of the United Staten aa a posse romltstus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases, and under such circumstances, aa such employment of said force may be expnsslr authorize! by tlio constitution, or by the act of Congress; ami no money appropriated by this act ■hall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred Ih the employment of any troops in violation of this lection: and anv person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall bo punished by fine not exceeding $10,1)00. or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both such fine ■nd imprisonment. This act pained the Renato, after full consideration, without a single vote recorded against it on its final passage, and by a majority of more than two-thirds it was concurred iu by the House of Representatives.

The purpose of tin section quoted was stated in the Senate by one of its supporters as follows: “Therefore, I hope, without getting into any controversy about the past, Tint acting wisely for the future, that we shall take away the idea that the armv can be used by a General or special Deputy Marshal, or any Marshal, merely for election purposes, or a posse ordering them about polls, or ordering them anywhere else where there is no election going on to prevent disorders or suppress disturbances that should be suppressed by the peace officers of tho Htatc, or, if they must bring otlues to their aid, they should summon unauthorized citizens and not summon the officers and men of the army as a posse comitatus to quell disorders, and thus get up a feeling which will be disastrous to the peace among the people of the country." In the House of Representatives the object of tho 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 points compared with tho groat principle which was incorporated by the House in tho bill in reference to the use of armed men in peace. The Senate had already included what they called, and what we might accept, as a principle, but they had stricken out the penalty and had stricken out the word ‘expressly,’ so that tbe army might bo used in all cases where implied authority might be interfered with. Tlio House committee planted themselves firmly upon the doctrine.that, rather than yield this fundamental principle, for which for three years this Rouse had struggled, they would allow the bill to fall, notwithstanding the reforms that we bad secured, regarding these reforms of but little consequence alongside of tlio 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 aud protracted negotiation, the Senate committee has cone ded that principle in its length and breadth, including the penalty which the Senate had stricken out We bring you back, therefore. a report—a report with the alteration of a single word, which 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 tho same great protection against a standing army which cost the struggle of 200 years for the Commons of England to secure for the British people.” From this brief review of tbe subject, it sufficiently appears that utider the existing laws there can be no military interference with elections. No case of such interference has, in fact, occurred since the passage of the act last referred to. No officer of the United States has appeared under orders at any place of election in any State. No complaint even of :he presence of 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 6 of tho bill bes >re me to prevent military interference at elections. The laws already in force are all that is required for that end. Bnt that part of section 6 of this bill which is significant and vitally important is the clause which, if adopted, will deprive the civil authorities ot the United States of all power to keep peace at Congressional elections. 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 nolitical party—is entitled to a share of the power which is conferred by legal and constitutional suffrage. It is the right of every citizen possessing the necessary qualifications firescribed by law to cast one unintimidated balot, 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 suffrage will be accorded loyally and cheerfully, and the departments of the 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 Congressional elections. Section 4 of Article I of the constitution declares: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each Slate, by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the .places of choosing Senators. The Fifteenth amendment to the constitution is m follows:

Section 1. The right of citizens ot the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United Slates, or by any Stats, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The Supreme Court has held that this amendment invests citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right Uie court declares to be the exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race. color or previous condition of servitude. The power of Congress to protect this right by appropriate legislation is expressly affirmed by the court of national legislation; to provide safeguards for free and honest elections, is necessary, as experience has 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 discrimination on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, and to punish fraud, violence and intimidation of Federal elections. Attention is called to the following section of the Revised Statutes of the United States viz.: Section 2.004, which guarantees all citizens the right to vote wi shout distinction on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Sections 2,015 and 2,006, which guarantee to all citizens an equal opportunitv, without discrimination, to perform all the acts required by law as a prerequisite or qualification for voting. Section 2,022, which authorizes the United States Marshal and his deputies to keep peace and preserve order at Federal elections. Section 2,024, which 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 and are prevented from executing their du ies by violence. Section 5,522, which provides for the punishment of the crime of interfering with Supervisors of Election and Deputy Marshals in the discharge of their duties at 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 civil officers of the United States, under a penalty of fine and imprisonment, from employing any adequate civil force for this the place where their enforcement Is most necessary, namely: At places where Congressional elections are held. 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 pending legislation should become a law, there is no power vested in any ofiicer of the Government to protect from violence the officers of the United States engaged in the discharge of their duties. Tiieir rights and duties under the law will remain, but the National Government will be gowerless to enforce its own statutes. The tates may employ both military and civil power to keep the peace'and enforce the laws at State elections. It is now proposed to deny to the United States even the necessary civil authority to protect national elections. No sufficient reason has been given for this discrimination in favor of a State and against national authority. If well founded objections exist against the present national Eleciion laws, all good citizens should unite iu their amendment. Laws providing safeguards of elections should be impartial, just and efficient They should, if possible, lie so non-partisan and fair in their operation that the minority party out of power will have no just grounds to complain. The present laws have iu practice unquestionably conduced to the prevention of frdud aud violence at elections. In several of the States members of different poli'i'al parties have applied for the safeguards which they furnish.

It is the right and duty of the National Government to enact and enforce the 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 the measures which will better accomplish that important end. Believing that section 6 of the bill before me will weaken, if it does not altogether take away, the power of the National Government to protect Federal elections by the civil authorities, I am forced to the conclusion that it ought not to receive my approval. That section is, however, not presented to me as a separate and independent measure, but is, as his been s ated, attached to the bill making the usual annual appropriations for the support of the armv. It makes a vital cnange in Hie Election law 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 the Army 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 the common practice. AH parties, when in power, havo adopted it. Many abuses and a 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 laws 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 was 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 iu the parliamentary practice of Congress would lie 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 branches of the Government winch participate in the legislation It cannot be claimed that there is any such reason for attaching this amendment of the Election law 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 tins section to this bill. It was known that a majority of the Senate was opposed to it, and that as a separate measure it could not bo adopted. It was attached to the Army Appropriation bill to compel the Senate to assent to it. It was plainly announced to the Senate liiat 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 the Appropriation bill for the army, and the present extra session of the Forty-sixth Congress became necessary 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; ikis not worthwhile to attempt to repeal except upon an appropriation bill The Republican Senate would not agree to, nor the Republican President sign, tbe bill for such repeat Whatever objection to legislation upon appropriation bills may be made in an ordinary case does not apply whore free elections ana the liberty of citizens are concerned. We have power to vote the money. Lot us annex conditions to it and insist upon a redress of the grievance. The Senate represents States. Wo represent the tax-payers of the republic. We, therefore, bv the very terms of the constituti in, 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.’’ 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 records numerous instances where the Commons, feeling that the people were oppressed by a law 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 question of gravest magnitude, and new in this country, was raised by this course of proceeding, and was fully recognized also by its defenders in the Senate. It was said by a distinguished Senator: “Perhaps no greater question, in the form in which we are brought to consider it, was ever considered by an American Congress, in time of peace, for it involves not only the merits and demerits of laws which the House bill pronoses 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.” Upon the assembling of this Congress, in pursuance of the call for an extra session, which was made necessary by the failure of the Forty-fifth Congress to make the needful appropriations lor 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 and by the usual aud orderly methods of procedure. But the majority of both houses have deemed it wise to adhere to the principle asserted and maintained in the last Congress by the majority of the House of Representatives. That principle is that the House of Representatives has the sole right to originate bills for the raising of revenue, and, therefore, has the right to withhold the appropriations upon which the existence of the Government may depend, unless the Senate and Presid nt shall give their assent to any legislation which the House may see fit to attach to appropriation bills. To establish this principle is to make a radical, dangerous and unconstitutional change W character gs our iuetfiytions,

The various departments of the Government and army and navy are established by the constitution, or by laws passed in pursuance thereof. Their duties are clearly defined, and their support is careful’y provided for by law. Tbe money required for this purpose has been collected from tbe people and is now in the treasury, ready to be paid out as the appropriation bills are passed. Whether the appropriations are made or not, the collection of taxes will go on. The public money will accumulate in tbe treasury. It was not the intention of the framers of tbe constitution that any single branch of the Government should have power to dictate the conditions upon which this treasure should be applied to the purposes for which it was collected. Any such intention, if it had been entertained, would have been plainly expressed in tbe constitution. That a majority of the Senate now concurs in the claim of the House adds to the gravity of the situation, but does not alter the question at issue. The new doctrine, if maintained, will result in a consolidation of unchecked and despotic power in the House of Representatives. A bare majority of the House will become 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 redress from any other branch of the Government To say that a majority of either or both houses of Congress may insist on 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 tbe 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 co-operation, are absolutely independent of each other. The people of the country are unwilling to see the supremacy of the constitution replaced by the omnipotence of any department of the Government. The enactment of this bill into a law will establish a precedent which will tend to destroy the equal independence of the several branches of the Government Its principle places not merely the .Senate and Executive, but th« judiciary also, under the coercive dictation of the House. The House alone will be the judge of what constitutes a grievance, and also of the means and mea-ure of redress. An act of Congress to protect elections is now the grievance complained of, but the House may, on the same principle, determine that any other act of Congress—a treaty made by tbe President, with the advice and consent of tbe Senate—a nomination or appointment to office, or a decision or opinion of lhe Supreme Court—is a grievance, and that a measure of redress is to withhold appropriations required for tbe 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 I cannot decline to perform, with a firm and conscientious purpose to do what I can to preserve, unimpaired, the constitutional powers and equal independence not merely of the Executive, but of every branch o' thp Government, which will be imperiled by an adoption of the principle of this bill. I desire earnestly to urge upon the House of Repreiontatives a return to the wise ani wholesome, usage of tho earlier days of the republic, which excluded from appropriation bills all irrelevant legislation. By this course you will inaugurate an important reform m the method of Congressional legislation. Your action will bo in harmony with the fundamental principles of tho constitution and tho patriotic sentiment of nationality, which is their firm support; and you will restore to the country that feeling of confidence and security and repose which are so essential to the prosperity of all our follow-citizens.

(Signed)

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.