Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 May 1879 — The President’s Veto Message. [ARTICLE]

The President’s Veto Message.

Those who pwdlo hut that thsiPresidunt’s veto of the Arfiy hill Moukl rest mainly upon the faot that tfee obnoxious legislation was attached to an Appropriation bill, muM bo fflMly disappointed In the message which sets forth the reasons for the President’s disapproval. In this prediction, the wish wiuf father to the thought. It was argued that, if the only serious objection urged by the President should be as to the manner in which the legislation was passed, it would be an oasy matter to separate the political legislation from the Appropriation bill, pass it as a separate measure, and thps Elaoe the President in a position where e would be compelled to sign it in order to be consistent. But the President has not given the Democrats this advantage. His message goes directly to the merits of the political legislation, and his disapproval is based on reasoning which would apply with equal force if the political amendments .were presented in an independent biR. It is true that, incidentally, tho President takes occasion to deprecate the firactice of attaching extraneous legisation to Appropriation bills. The practice was particularly offensive in this ease, because the ciroumstances were suoh as to indicate a purpose of threatening the President if he should use his Constitutional veto power. As the message points but, the passage of needed legislation in the closing hoars of a session, when both Houses of Congress' and the Executive axe praotically agreed upon its expediency, may be facilitated by making such legislation a part of an Appropriation bilT without seriously offending the proprieties, though it is a dangerous precedent. But the present case was very differept. Congress had entered upon a new session. There was no hurry and no exigency. The first duty was to pass the Appropriation bills which had failed in the preceding Congress. There \yas ample time m well as abundant opportunity for the separate consideration of political legislation. Under these Circumstances, and in the light of menacing utterances about starving the Executive into submission, the President was fully warranted in regarding the project as a blow aimed at his Constitutional prerogative, and Such a conviction alone would have demanded his resistance at the very first step. But, while Congress deserves the rebuke the President visits upon it in this regard, the disapproval of the political sections of the bill is fully, intelligently and convincingly explained in the message, without regard to the manner in which they were passed. Notwithstanding the long and exhaustive debate over this measure in Congress, we think the President’s Message will aid many persons to a clear understanding of the jn&rits of the issue. The sections of the 1 Army bill which have called out 'the Presi-' dent’s disapproval are those which ( strike out the authority of all civil as well as military and ijaval officers: to invoke the aid of troops any general or special election to keep the peace at the polls, and (2) provides a severe penalty of fine and imprisonment upon any civil officer who shall undertake to employ the troops to that end. The President considers the restriction of the Civil officers of the Government in two bearirigs* viz.’: (1) As it would affect the right of the United States Government to use the military, forces to-keep the •ipeape at Congressional elections! and (2\ as it would affect the power of the Government tjo protect these Congressionak from fraud and violence. In these

bearings of the proposed restriction the President has been able to consider the whole question of National protection for National .elections as wfcll as if the Legislative Bill (which repeals the vital parts of the National Election law) were actually before hi«K • " ’ The President demonstrates, by> Citation of existing statutes, that:'ail-elec-tions, general and, special,' are ftilly protected from military interference by the present, status of the law. Secs. 2000, 5529, bbWlUM* 'Unit; 0532 fdkbid any officer of the anpy-pr navy to prescribe or 'wttenfbtlte; sresofibe,|n any manner the qualifications fsr voters in any State,"nr to interfere in ahy way with the freedom of any election or the free rights of suffrage in any State, and impose severe penalties by fine and imprisonment for every infraction of this law. . 'the prohibition is very strictly and explicitly’ applied in the various statutes cited, and covers the whole ground of military interference; But, in addition tb> these stfiltftehpthe last Congress attached to the last'Army Appropriation bill a section making it ‘.‘unlawful to employ anyjjart of the Army of (thu United States'as a posse comilatus 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 exprefesly authorized, by .the Constitution or by act of Coagtess;- the .same section also provided a severe, penalty by fine and imprisonment for t Jie violation jot thib law. The J’residecnt,' in uis message, quotes from the speeches of leading Democrats in : both houses, at the passage of this law, Which shows that'they' (the Democrats) regarded this act as “securing to the people of

this;country the same gi'eat protection against a standing army which cost a struggle of two hundred years for the. Commons of England'to secure for the British people.”'! Having thus shown that the laws, as they now are. afford an absolute guarantee against military ...interference with ejections, and that the Democrats themselves have so construed their, the President is forced to the conclusion that the political sections of the Armv Appropriation bill are especially designed to deprive the civil .authorities of the United States of. a 1 power to keep the peace at Congressional elections, and. this involves a denial of the power to enforce obedience to the existing laws for the supervision of the Congressional elections, and for the protection of the United States Supervisors and Marshals to whom the execution, of those laws 4 confined. It is unnecessary to follow the President's argument.showing the Constitutional right, of the United States Government to protect; the purity of the ballot-box 'at Congressional elections. proper laws. Those Who axe not already convinced that -Such right exists and ought to be exercised, may be enlightened by what he Bays, but intelligent and fair-minded men can ‘ soaroely need anyargamenton th.s phase bf the question. Suffice it to say that the President bases his disapproval of the Army bill upon the jrronnd that the political Sections festroy the power of the civil officers protect® Congressional elections as Psg$ d . ed lam Perhaps the foMomJlf is the .totet significant passage in his message: '-'..V

"Among the moot * valuable eiyw&aieiita to' which X have referred nr* those which protect the islaiioa should btooaw a law, there la u» power rested in any officer of, the Government to protect from violence tbw offiosm of-tht United ? tales enraged in ,th? dischargetheir duties. heir n.htsand dabes under the law will re. mail), but the Notional Government will be DOWerlese to ,en force ite own »tatueew jn>e Mates may employ bbth military and civil tfower to keep the peace and enfcettpStwawMcte station*. It U now proposed to deny -to tint United States even the neoeeeary civil authority to protect the National elections. No Sufficient reason has been given' for*, this <tincrirnmation■ in' favor of Stale and against National authority. II well-founded objections exist ngnmst the present National Station laws, all good cltisens should unite in their amendment. laws providing safeguards of elections should be uapartial, just ana efficient they should. If possible, bo groan'd*to odmplsin. The present Uhrs Bare in practice unquestionably conduced to the prevention of fraud and violence at elections. In sev oral of the btates members of dilterant political parties have applied for safeguards which they furnish, it isthe right and duty of the National Government to enact and enforce laws which will aeenre free and fair Oongremiotial elections. The laws now In force ehoulu not be repealed except in connection with the enactment tit measures which will better accomplish that important end. Believing that Bee. 6of the bill before me will weaken, if it docs not altogether take away, the power of the National Government to protect Federal elections by civil authorities. I am forord to tht; conclusion it ought not to receive my approval.” —Chicago Tribune. *.