Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 June 1879 — USE OF TROOPS. [ARTICLE]

USE OF TROOPS.

Able Speech of Mr. McDonald, of Indiana. Delivered in the Senate of the United ' States. In has been sought, Mr. President, by the Republican party in and out of Congress, to stamp upon the controversy that has arisen over the effort that has been made to repeal the Federal election laws a sectional character, and to use it as a means of securing a solid North against what the Republican leaders are pleased to style a “solid South.” No effort has been made to defend these laws on any sound principle, but the intellect and eloquence of the ablest champions of the Republican party have been amjtJoyed in the endeavor to utilize sectional hate and to excite the fears and prejudices of the people of the Northern States against the people of the Southern States, while it is perfectly manifest that the North as a section is more interested in their repeal than the South. If the South has become solid it is because the maladministration of the Republican party in the Southern States has made it so; ana in the nature of things it will continue to oppose with united front any party that shall seek to maintain political power in that section by attempting to govern it by placing ignorance over intelligence and subordinating civilization to barbarism. Withdraw the outside pressure that has encircled that section since the day that reconstruction began, and in a short time we shall have a divided South as well as a divided North, and political parties separated by geographical lines will soon be unknown to our politics. Again, the advocates of these measures falsely charge that their repeal is a reactionary movement in favor of ultra State rights ana would endanger the proper authority and power of the General Government If by ultra State rights is meant the right of secession or nullification, it is not true that it is now or never was a Democratic doctrine, as it-certainly ever was the principle of the Federal constitution. From the days of Thomas Jefferson to the present time the Democratic party as a party has ever maintained that the Federal Government, within the powers delegated to it by the Federal constitution, was supreme. They have only claimed what the constitution itself deciares, that the powers not therein delegated to it nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the Stat as respectively and to 4he people; and the invasion of these reserved powers by the Federal Government is an unwarranted usurpation, as the nullification of the Federal authority by the State or by the people is an unauthorized rebellion. The Democratic party is no more chargeable with the views held by Mr. Calhoun and his followers than is the Republican party chargeable with like sentiments expressed in the Hartford Convention. My objections to these laws, Mr. President, are, first, that they are in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution, by seeking to interfere with or control the primary right of the States over the people’s Representatives; second, that they surround the election-polls in the States with the political emissaries of the administration, with power, if need be, to call to their assistance the military arm of tbe Government, under the pretense of keeping the peace at the polls; and, third, that this election machinery has been used, and if suffered to remain in force will bo used again, for the mere purpose of securing party triumphs, and that this use is more to be feared throughout the Northern States than in any section of the Union. Take the election of 1878 as an illustration. In the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio, it is safe to say that by the aid of these lavys the Republican party was. enabled to change the political complexion of at least ten Congressional districts. Without this a:d the House of Representatives of the present Congress would have a Democratic majority of at least twenty, and by its use ! t is ia the power of the administration to cou ’■he elections of members of Congress in every . or doubtful district in the United States. In . "ity of Philadelphia during the last election tbv was employed an army of Federal officers numbering 773 Deputy Marshals and 1,332 Supervisors of ’Election, at a cost to the people of $41,170, a force that was wholly unnecessary for any purposes of a free and fair election, as was shown by the testimony of the Marshal of that district in his examination before a committee of this body. The following is his testimony on that point: By Mr. Hoar: Question I suppose you have had large experience in the city of Philadelphia. Are you a native of that city? Answi r. Yis. sir; I was born in that city, Q. And lived there all your days? A. Yes. sir. Q. In your judgment, would those elections have been safe from disorder and fraud without ■the precautions which you have described? A. I believe they would. Q. Without the precautions you have described? Suppose there had been no supervision or guarding by the Deputy Marshals, do you think there would have been danger of disorder or fraud in the elections? A. In some localities there would, in others there would not. I think, as far as the appointment of Supervisors and United States Marshals for the city of Philadelphia is concerned, the city could do without them very well. She could protect herself without the law, as far as Philadelphia is concerned.

In the city of New York a still larger force at a still greater cost was employed, as has been repeatedly shown in this debate. In the city of Cincinnati two Congressional districts were controlled by Federal emissaries, and the people cheated out of their choice. In the State of Massachusetts more money was paid out by the public treasury to control the elections than in all the States lately in rebellion. Will her Senators in this Chamber say that this was necessary to secure a free and fair election of members of Congress? If not, for what purpose was this Federal machinery brought into play in that State? I suppose there can be but one answer to that question It was to prevent the people of Massachusetts from selecting for their Governor a certain person, well known to the history of this country, who made himself obnoxious to the political leaders of that State. Gen. Butler is no personal or political favorite of mine, yet he is a man of great ability and is a citizen of Massachusetts. The people of that State had the right to choose him for their Governor, but the leaders of the Republican party did not think so* and consequently foreign aid was called in to control the popular will. Deputy Marshals were appointed; United States Supervisors were appointed, and the people were taxed to defray the expenses incurred in defeating them of their choice. All this was done under the false pretense of providing for a frep and fair election. The effect, therefore, of these laws, as already demonstrated by their practical working, is to interfere in State elections as well as to place it in the power of the Federal admistration to subordinate the popular branch of the Federal Congress to the control of the executive department of the Government, and to aid in his purpose the Executive is vested with almost unlimited control over the military power of the country, with direct authority to station troops at the polls under pretense of keeping the peace. The President of the* United States is “Com-mander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States.” It a fundamental principle of free government that the military should be held in strict subordination to civil authority. It was one of the specific grounds of complaint by the colonies against the King of Great Britain “ that he had affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” The principle of making the military strictly subordinate to the civil power was scrupulously guarded by the fathers of the republic. There are three classes of cases in which a use or the military is not only proper, but often indispensable; they are, first, to repel invasion; second, to enforce the laws of the United States; third, to aid a State in suppressing insurrection against its authority, or to put down domestic violence.

The power of the Executive to use the army as its military commander to repelinvasion has never been restricted, but has been left to his discretion. An armed invasion by a public enemy is war, and must be met at once by military power, and every President has been authorized to use it and vested with the power to decide on its necessity. But not so in the other two cases. The President is not a magistrate with authority to issue processes and precepts; there is another department of the Government clothed with that power—the judicial department, and, while it is made his duty to take care “ that the laws be faithfully executed,” it is not right to clothe him with the authority to decide upon the question of their execution; and, therefore, in the earlier statutes regulating this duty it was expressly provided that, when the laws of the United States were opposed in any State by a combination too powerful to be suppressed by ,he ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or

by the powers vested in the Marshals, the President, upon receiving official information of that fact from an Associate Justice—that is, one of the Supreme Judges—or the District Judge of proper district, was authorized to call in the aid of the military power to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be exe-e cuted. So, when in any State there should be an insurrection against the Government .thereof, it was lawful for the President, on the application of the Legislature of such State or the Executive when the Legislature could not be convened, to use the military force of the United States to suppress such insurrection. And, during the nullification excitement of 1832-’33, when it was thought necessary to clothe the President with what was regarded ex'raordinary powers to meet the exigency of the case, the statutes were carefully drawn to guard against the exercise of any arbitrary power on his part by requiring him to be officially informed by the authorities of the State, or by the proper Federal Judge, of the existence of the facts creating the necessity for military aid, and the duration of the authority conferred was expressly limited in the act. The act of July 29, 1861, still upon our statutebooks, was the first broad departure from these principles and vested in the President dictatorial powers. It is as follows: Whenever, by reason ot 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 judicial 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 of 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.

It will be seen that the power to judge of the exigency is vested in the President, and not in the courts nor in the State authorities. As President he decides and as Commander-in-Chief of the army he executes, so that the judicial and civil as well as military authority in the premises is vested in the one department of government— the executive. It may be said that this act was passed during flagrant war and as a war measure. This may have justified its passage; it may have also justified the continuance of this power during the war; but it forms no justification for vesting such powers perpetually in the one department of government, the head of which is also the military chief of the country. During the war this great power was not only exercised by the President, but by military commanders in various localities, as shown by numerous military orders issued in loyal as well as disloyal sections of the country, and was frequently leveled at persons whose only offense consisted in their opposition to the political measures of the administration. Under it, or in misuse of it, elections were interfered with and the military used to control them in the interest of the Republican party. I have heard it said in this Chamber that the military had never been used to control elections in this country. In my State, in 1864, a regiment of Massachusetts volunteers stationed at Indianapolis were permitted to leave their encampment on the day of election, and, with arms m their hands, suffered to surround the polls and not only exclude citizens from voting but were permitted to vote themselves, a privilege that they used most freely. This was done in my own view, and I saw these non-resident armed men insult and drive from the polls citizens of the State as loyal as themselves. Similar scenes were enacted in other parts of the State, as I have good reason to know. These and.other like abuses induced the passage of the act of 1865, by which it was made “unlawful for any military or naval officer of the United States, or other person engaged in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, to order, bring, or keep or have under his authority or control any troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election was held in any State of the United States of America, unless it shall be necessary to repel the armed enemies of ths United States. ” So read the bill as introduced by its author. Senator Powell, of Kentucky, but, by the Repu lican majority in the Senate, it was amended by adding these important words, “or to keep the peace at the polls. ” The Republican party, then as now, were unwilling to give up the power of exorcising, through their President, military supervision over the elections. In 1871 an act was passed enti'led “Au act to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.”

The third section of this act has been changed by the revisers and carried into the Revised Statutes as a general law. It is section 5,199, and is the third section under the title “Insurrection. ” As revised it confers upon the President the most absolute power in the use of the military in suppressing insurrections in the States and in enforcing the laws of the United States, making him the sole judge of the exigency and relieving him from any control on the part of any other department of the Government or from any State or local authority, so that, instead of returning to constitutional and regular methods of civil government when the war was over, the Republican party has added to the powers of the President even beyond what was thought necessary during the most urgent necessities of the civil war, so that we now have upon the statute-books laws that not only authorize and permit an unwarrantable interference in popular elections, but, what is more dangerous still, powers slumbeiing there capable of being exerted in establishing a military dictatorship. The purpose of the bill I have had the honor to introduce is to aid in securing such just reforms as will relieve the country from the danger or apprehensions of danger of the exercise of arbitrary power by the President in the use of the military arm of the Government, and to place that arm under control of proper civil authority without crippling the President in any proper use of it, and, by repealing all Federal laws relating to the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, to remit to the people and the States once more the right to free elections under their ownlaws. These objects the Democratic party has endeavored to accomplish by the various measures which it has sought tj pass into the forms of law and which have been so strenuously opposed by the Republican party in this and the last sessions of Congress. No more important question has ever engaged the attention of the people of this country in the time of peace. It involves no less an issue than this: Are our people, after passing through a civil war which taxed their energies to the utmost, and in which, for war purposes, they clothed their Executive with a most absolute power, capable, when the war is over, of re-establishing the civil administration of the Government by applying once more the checks and balances so necessary to secure popular rights; or will they, for the benefits and advantages that parties may derive from the exercise of such arbitrary power, suffer it to remain as a permanent part of our political system? Our people have shown themselves equal to many emergencies and vindicated their capacity for self-government, and for maintaining the guarantees of civil liberty on many occasions, and in my opinion they will do so now. The Republican party, in its opposition to these necessary reforms, has made itself the champion of arbitrary power and of Federal interference in the elections, and in the end will be beaten. It is not a mere contest between the Democratic party on the one band and the Republican party on the other, nor is it a controversy between the North and the Son th; it is a contest between the Republican party in its effort to retain the control of the Government and the people in their endeavor to re-establish the principles of a just, representative republic. Every man in this country whose political future is not bound up in the success of the Republican party is in favor of these reforms, and in the contest to secure them the Democratic party is but the mouth-piece and organ of the people, and no blunders or mistakes which it can make in its efforts to secure these reforms can cause their ultimate defeat

I know it is a favorite saying among Republican leaders that they have been embled to maintain power heretofore on account of the mistakes made by the Democratic party, but this is very far from being true, although from time to time they may have profited by such mistakes. I ask my Republican friends to look back over the past At the close of the war their party was in power in all the Northern States, and they held the Southern States as conquered provinces and molded them in their reconstruction policy as the potter molds the clay in his hands. The people felt grateful to the Republican party because under its auspices the Rebellion had been put down and the territorial integrity of the country preserved. It is true that, on every battle-field, the Democrats of the Northern States stood side by side with Republicans in support of the Union. In my own State the roll of the living and the dead will show a Democrat of the rank and file for every Republican, and, among the most honored of tho Democrats of Indiana, are to be found the names of Manson, Love, Gray, Slack, Shaw, Williams, and a host of others; yet the Democratic party, became it insisted unon being true to Its principle; ig opposing sqcb political

measures of the Republican party as it is believed to be wrong, was charged with disloyalty. Fourteen years have passed away. How stands the case now? This arrogant and imperious Republican party is in a minority in noth branches of Congress, is in a minority in every State in the Union but four, and holds the executive power of this Government by commission of a political crime and against a popular majority of over 260,000 votes, and has no hope in the future except in its bad effort to array one section of the country against another. It requires no prophet to foretell its downfall, for it has been “weighed in the balance and found wanting.**