Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 June 1879 — The President and the Election Laws. [ARTICLE]

The President and the Election Laws.

Mr. Hayes does not waste words in the statement of his objections to '.he general legislation relating to Congressional elections, which the Democrats appended to the Legislative AppropriatiOn bill. Contenting himself with ary allusion to the criticism upon lh3 practice of thus attempting to coerce a coordinate branch of the Government into a surrender of its convictions, and touching accidentally the point presented in his first veto With reference to the obligation resting on Congress to provide the necessary appropriations, ho proceedß With tnuen conciseness snd set forth the case against the measure sanctioned by the majority jo Congfegs, His. argument

is skillful and effective. H lacks the sustained general interest ot the lastveto message, and proceeds ffon the assumption that the three messages will be recognized as treating of diffeient phases of one general subject. The assumption is, in fact, essential to the completeness of the exhibit relied upon by Republicans for an adequate exposure of the Democratic policy, its motives and tendencies. Perhaps the freshest point presented in the last message is the exposure of the insincerity and logical weakness of the Democratic position in regard to the Congressional elections. The principle on which the measures covered by the veto messages are baaed are plain enough. It is, that the Federal Government has noConstitutional warrant for the exercise of authority at the polls; that the maintenance of order there devolves upon the ’ States; that the President can interfere only when his aid is sought by the States in the manner prescribed for such emergencies. On this principle, an attempt was made to deprive tne President of his power over the army, so far aa elections are concerned. Carrying out the principle, the provisions tacked to the bill now vetoed strip United States Marshals and Deputy-Marshals of the authority they exercise under the existing law in connection with Congressional elections, and also take from the Supervisors of Elections the authority “to personally scrutinize, count and canvass each ballot” But the bill left unrepealed enough of the present statntes to preserve the Federal presence where, according to the Democratic principle, that presence should not be tolerated. Citizens in each election district might still have required of a Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States the appointment of Supervisors of Election, with the view of having the election “guarded and scrutinized.” Practically, the appointments would havb been worth little. The efficacy of supervision requires the possession by the Supervisors of all the authority necessary for the discharge of their duties: just as the value of Hie Marshals and Deputy Marshals depends upon their ability to prevent by arrest* any obstruction, and to repel and punish any interference inimical to the integrity of the election. But the continued presence of Supervisors, appojntees of a Federal Judge, would be, in the abstract, in direct opposition to the Democratic theory. For the purpose of the argument, it matters not that the Supervisors would be powerless. So much of the l&w as provides for their appointment the Democrats allowed t 0 stand, and the fact, insignificant as it may seem, convicts them of conceding that which is destructive of the Staterights principle, and of pretending to acquiesce in supervision while depriving it of vitality. -

This manifest dishonesty has been the chief characteristic of the Democratic plans since the opening of the special session. The professions put forward have been mere pretenses — pretenses so flimsy that they have not for an instant concealed the real designs of the party employing them. In regard to the troops, and their possible use at the polls, the Democratic leaders are on tne record, as the President has shown, with admissions which prove the unreasonableness of the outcry they have raised. Having admitted that the law as it stands effectually, restrains the military power, their present object is not to guard against possible abuses, of that power, but to render the Executive helpless, however urgent the need of his interference. Precisely so it is with the Supervisors and Deputy Mar-, shals as guardians of honesty and order at the polls. If the Democrats were resolved to uphold the principle behind which they take refuge, they would sweep away all semblance of supervision. But the principle does not trouble them. What they are anxious to be rid of is the ex-' erciiSe ** of an authority which keep* ruffianism in check, makes fraud dangerous, and secures a certain degree of integrity in the recording and counting of votes. Under the bill now vetoed “ only the shadow of the authority of the United States at the National elec- ’ tions” would remain. “The object of the bill,” the President truly‘says, “is to destroy any control whatever by the United States over the Congressional elections.” This purposo he declines to sanction, and his decision will be sustained, not by the Republican party alone, but by all who recognize the National character of these elections, and the National importance of so. regulating them as to insure respect for their results.— N. Y. Times.