Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 June 1879 — THE THIRD VETO. [ARTICLE]

THE THIRD VETO.

The President’s Objections to the Legislative Appropriation Bill. To the House of Representatives: Bibs: After mature consideration of the bill entitled “ An act making appropriations for tbe legislative, executive and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes,” I herewith return it to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with tho following objections to its approval: The main purpose of the bill is to appropriate money required to support, during the next fiscal year, the several civu departments of the Government The amount apnropriated exceeds in the aggregate $ 18.000,000. This money is needed to keep in operation the essential functions of all the great departments of the Government—legislative, executive and judicial. If the bill contained no other provisions, no objections to its approval would be made. It embraces, however, a number of clauses relating to subjects of great general interest, which are wholly unconnected with the appropriation which it provides for. Objections to the practice of tacking general legislation to appropriation bills, especially when the object is to deprive a co-operative branch of the Government of its rights to the free exercise of its own discretion and judgment touching such general legislation, were set forth in the special message in relation to the House bill No. 1, which was returned to the House of Representatives on the 29th o? last month. I regret that the objections which were expressed to this method of legislation have not seemed to Congress of sufficient weight Io dissuade form this renewed incorporation of general enactments in an appropriation bill, and that my constitutional duty in respect to general legislation thus placed before me cannot be discharged without seeming to delay, however briefly, the necessary appropriation by Congress for the support of the Government

Without repeating those objections, I respectfully refer to that message for a statement of my views on the principle maintained in the debate by the advocates of this bill, viz.: That “to withhold appropriations is a constitutional means for the redress” of what a majority of the House of Representatives may regard as a “grievance.” The bill contains the following clauses, viz.: “And provided further, that the following sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, namely, sections 2,016, 2,018 and 2,020, and all of the succeeding sections of said statutes down to and incluaing section 2,027, and also section 5,522, be, and the same are hereby repealed, * * * and that all the other sections of the Revised Statutes, and all laws and parts of laws authorizing the appointment of Chief Supervisors of Elections, special Deputy Marshals of Elections, or General Deputy Marshals, having any duties to perform in respect to any election, srd prescribing their duties and powers, and allowing them compensation, be and the same are hereby repealed. ” It also contains clauses amending sections 2,017, 2,019, 2,028 and 2,031 of the Revised Statutes. The sections of the Revised Statutes which this bill, if approved, would repeal or amend are part of an act approved May 30,1870, and amended Feb. 28, 1871, entitled “An act to enforce the rights of citizens of tbe United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other purposes. ” All of the provisions of the above-named acts which it is proposed in this bill to repeal or modify relate to Congressional elections. T‘ e remaining portion of the law, which will continue in force after the enactment of this measure, is that which provides fpr the appointment by a Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States of two Supervisors of Elections in each election district, at any Congressional election, on the due application of citizens who desire, in the language of the law, “to have such election giArded and scrutinized. The duties of the Supervisors will be to attend at the polls at all Congressional elections, and to remain after the polls are open until every vote cast has been counted; but they will have no authority to make arrests or to perform other duties than to be in the immediate presence of the officers holding the elections, and to witness all their proceedings, including the counting of the votes and making a return thereof.” The part of the Election law which will be repealed by the approval of this bill includes those sections which give authority to the Supervisors of Elections “to personally scrutinize the count and canvass each ballot,” and all the sections which confer authority upon United States Marshals and Deputy Marshals in connection with Congressional ’elections. The enactment of this bill will also repeal section 5,522 of the criminal statutes of the United States, which was enacted lor the protection of United States officers engaged in the discharge of their duties at Congressional elections. This section protects Supervisors and Marshals in the performance of their duties, by making the obstruction or assaulting of these officers, or any interference with them by bribery, or solicitation or otherwise, crimes against the United States. The true meaning and effect of the proposed legislation are plain. Tho Supervisors, with authority to observe and witness the proceedings at the Congressional elections will be left, but there will be no power to protect them, or to prevent interference with their duties, or to punish any violation of law from which their powers are derived. If this bill is approved, only the shadow of authority of the United States at national elections will remain; the substance will be gone. The supervision of elections will be reduced to mere Inspection, without authority on the part of the Supervisors to do any act whatever to make the election a fair one. All that will be left to the Supervisors is the permission to have such an oversight of elections as political parties are in the habit of exercising without any authority of the law, in order to prevent their opponents from obtaining unfair advantages. The object of the bill is to destroy any control whatever by the United States over Congressional elections. The passage of this bill has been urged upon the ground that the election of members of Congress is a matter which concerns the States alone; that these elections should be controlled exclusively by the States; that there are, and can be, no such elections as national elections, and that the existing law of the United States regulating Congressional elections is without warrant in the constitution. It is evident,however, that the framers of the constitution regarded the election of members of Congress in every State and in every district as, in a very important sense, justly a matter of political interest and concern to the whole country. The original provision of the constitution on this subject is as follows: Section 4 Abticle 1. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to tbe places of choosing Senators. A further provision has since been added, which is embraced in the Fifteenth amendment It is as follows: Section 1. The rigfit of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. Sec. 2. Ihe Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Under the general provisions of the constitution (Section 4, Article 1) Congress, in 1866, passed a comprehensive law, which prescribed full and detailed regulations for the election of Senators by the Legislatures of the several States.

This law has been in force almost thirteen years. In pursuance of it, all of the members of the present Senate of the United States hold their seats. Its constitutionality is not called in question. It is confidently believed that no sound argument can be made in support of the constitutionality of the national regulation of Senatorial elections which will not show that the elections of members of the House of Representatives may also be constitutionally regulated by national authority. The bill before mo itself recognizes the principle that the Congressional elections are not State elections, bnt national elections. It leaves in full force the existing statute under which the Supervisors are still to be appointed by national authority to “observe and witness” Congressional elections whenever due application is made by citizens who desire said elections to be “guarded and scrutinized. ” If the power to supervise, in any respect whatever, the Congressional elections exist under Section 4, Article lof the constitution it is a power which, like evrey other power belonging to the Government of the United States, is paramount and supreme, and includes the right to emplov the necessary means to carry it into effect * The statutes of the United States which regulate the election of members of the House of Representatives, an essential part of which it is proposed to repeal by this bill, have been in force about eight years. Four Congressional

elections have been held under them, two of which were at the Presidential elections of 1872 and 1876. Numerous prosecutions, trials and convictions have been field in the courts of the United States in all parts of the Union for violations of these laws. In no reported case has their constitutionality been called in question by any Judge of the courts of the United States. The validity of these laws is sustained by the uniform course of judicial action and opinion. If it is urged that the United States Election laws are not necessary, an ample reply is furnished by a history of their origin and of their results. They were especially prompted by the investigation and exposure of frauds committed in the city and State of New York at the elections of 1878. Committees representing both of the leading political parties of the country have submitted reports to the House of Representatives as to the extent of those frauds. The committee of the Fortieth Congress, after a full investigation, reached the conclusion that the number of fraudulent votes cast in the city of New York alone in 1868 was not less than 25,000. A committee of the Forty-fourth Congress, in its report, submitted in 1877, adopted the opinion that for every 100 actual voters of the city of New York, in 1868,108 votes were cast, when, in fact, the number of lawful votes cast could not have exceeded 88 per cent, of the actual voters of the city. By this statement the number ■of the fraudulent votes at that election in the city of New York alone was between 30,000 and 40,000. These frauds completely reversed the result of the election in the State of New York, both as to the choice of Governor and State officers, and as to the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States. They attracted the attention of the whole country. It was plain that, if they could be continued and repeated with impunity, free government was impossible. A distinguished Senator, in opposing the passage of the election laws, declared that he nad for a long time believed that our form of government was a comparative failure in the large cities. To meet these evils and to prevent these crimes the United States laws regulating Congressional elections were enacted. The framers of these laws have not been disappointed in their results. In the large cities, under their provisions, the elections have been comparatively peaceable, orderly and honest. Even the opponents of these laws have borne testimony to their value and efficiency, and to the necessity for their enactment The committee of the Forty-fourth Congress, composed of members a majority of whom were opposed to these laws, in their report on the New York election of 1876, said: “ The committee would commend to other portions of the country, and to other cities, this remarkable system developed through the agency of both the local and Federal authorities, acting in harmony for an honest purpose. In no portion of the world, in no era of time where there has been an expression of the popular will through tbe forms of law, has there been a more complete and thorough illustration of republican institutions. Whatever may have fieen the previous habit or conduct of elections in those cities, or howsoever they may conduct themselves in future, this election of 1876 will stand as a monument of what good faith, honest endeavor, legal forms and just authority may do for the protection of the electoral franchise.”

This bill recognizes the authority and duty of the United States to appoint Supervisors to guard and scrutinize Congressional elections; but it denies to the Government of the United States all power to make its provisions effectual The great body of the people want free and fair elections. They do not think that a free election means freedom from the wholesome restraints of law, or that the place of an election should be a sanctuary for lawlessness and crime. On the day of an election, peace and good order are more necessary than on any other day of the year. On that day the humblest and feeblest citizens, the aged and infirm, should be and should have reason to feel that they are safe in the exercise of their most responsible duty, and their most sacred right as members of society, their duty and their right to vote. Constitutional authority to regulate Congressional elections, which belongs to the Government of the United States, and which it is necessary to exert to secure the right to vote to every citizen possessing the requisite qualifications, ought to be enforced by appropriate legslation. So far from public opinion in any part of the country favoring any relaxation of the authority of the Government in the protection of elections.from violence and corruption, I believe it demands greater vigor both in the enactment and in the execution of the laws framed for that purpose. Any oppression, any partisan partiality, which experience may have shown in the working of the existing laws may well engage the careful attention, both of Congress and of the Executive in their respective spheres of duty for the correction of these mischiefs. As no Congressional elections occur until after the regular session of Congress will have been held, there seems to be no public exigency that would preclude a seasonable consideration at this session of any administration of details that might improve the present methods designed for the protection of all citizens in a complete and equal exercise of the right and power of suffrage at such elections. But with my views, both of the constitutionality and of the value of the existing l iws, I cannot approve any measure for their repeal, except in connection with enactment of other legislation, which may reasonably be expected to afford wiser and more efficient safeguards for free and honest Congressional elections. (Signed) Rutherford B. Hayes. Executive Mansion, May 29,1879.