Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 June 1879 — PUNCTURED. [ARTICLE]

PUNCTURED.

The Wind Let Out of the B•« Inflated by the Democratic majority of the llouae Judiciary Committee -The minority He port I'pon the Bourbon Deliverance- The Course of the Pres* Ident Huatalncd and Commended. The minority of the Home Judiciary Committee to which waa referred the message of the President disapproving “An act to prevent military interference with elections, 1 ’ submitted to the House of Hepresentatives on the 20th the following statement of the reasons why they cannot concur with the views of their Democratic colleagues, constituting a majority of the Committee: lhe repeated efforts tn said report to make it appear tliat the ilßlit or authority to Interfere with Stats elections, or with the freedom and lawful conduct ot any electors, Is claimed or asserted In any quarter, la haidly dcscrvmy of be ious notice. The minority In Conaress Ipivc made no such claim. The rlzlit of Federal supervision contended for applies to Con 1 ereasliiii.il elections only. This la-entirely ienored In the report 01 the majority. Their report proceeds upon the false assumption that the President advocates the use of Federal authority to supervise State elections. No such claim is made In the message under consideration or in any other message or utterance of the President; neither does the message advocate or Justify military interference w,th the freedom of any elections. On the contrary, the President usca the following language: } Holding, os 1 do, the opinion that any military interferenqe at the polls ia contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and would tend to destroy the freedom of elections, and sincerely demrina to concur with Congress in ail its measures, it ia with very great regret that I am fererd to the conclusion that the hill.before me is not only unnecessary to prevent such interference, but is a dangerous departure from long-settled and important Constitutional principles. The true rule as to the employment of military force at dec lions is not doubtful. No intimidation or coercion bpo'iild be allowed to control or influence citizens in the exercise of their right to vote whether it be in the shape of combination of evil-disposed persons, or of armed bodies of militia of the .State, or of the military force of the United States. Elections shall be free from all forcible interference, and as far as practicable from all apprehensions of such interference. No soldiers, either of theCnionor of the State militia, should be present at the polls to take the place or to perform the duties of the ordinary civil polioc force. There has been and will be no violation of thisrnle under orders Irom me during this Administration. It Is hlstoiically true that during the Rebellion there was such interference in cases when factious or a dominant element of disloyalty existed. These were necessities growing out of the nafflre of the conflict and the anomalous condition of seceding and border States. They were In no sense acts of partisanship. Military orders were issued lor the purpose by officers of the army, irrespective of their political affiliations. Among the earliest and most notable of such orders was that by General McClellan: IIEADQtIARTKRH ARMY OF THE POTOMAC. WASHTNOToSt petdber 29, 1861.—General: There is apprehension among citizens in many parts of Sri iryland'bt- an nttempt at interference with their rights of suffrage by disunion citizens on Ihe occasion of the election to take place on the 6th of November next. In order to prevent this the Major-General commanding directs you to send detachments of a sufficient number of men to the different points in yonr vicinity where elections are to be held to protect the Union voters, and to see that no disunionists arc allowed to intimidate them or in any way interfere with their rights. He also desires you to arrest nnd hold in confinement until after election all disunionists who are known to have returned from Virginia recently and who show themselves at the polls, and to guard effectually against any invasion of the peace and order of ♦he election. For the purpose of carrying out these instructions yon are authorized to suspend the habeas corpus. General Stone has received similar instructions to these. You will please confer with him ns to the particular points each shall take control of. I am, sir, very respectfully yonr obedient servant. It. B. Maucy, Chief of Staff. Major-General N. P. Banks. Commanding Division, Muddy Branch. Md. Before the close of the Rebellion, wnd while denouncing the war to suppress it as a failure, the party now demanding this legislation selected the author of the order above quoted as its candidate for the Presidency. It sought to make him Command, r-in-Cbief of the Army and Navy. It 111 becomes the party with such a record to indulge in such Imputations and criticisms upon a President whose administration has been ir.aiked by so great forbearance toward the people of the States lately in rebellion, and who has in no manner sanctioned military Interference with elections, for having dared to maintain his Constitutional prerogative and to preserve the right to use the military and naval rower whenever and wherever sanctioned by the Constitution and laws. These and similar orders undoubtedly exercised influences in securing the enactment of the law of 1865, which prohibits the use of the army or navy at the time and place of any general or special election In any State except it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States or to kiep the peace at the rolls, and also prohibits any military or naval officer from prescribing the qualifications of voters or in any manner interfering with the exercise of the free right of suffrage in any State. This law, with appropriate penalties for its violation, was approved by President luncii.liu.anflL_siuce Jtß_enaclment we do not believe there lias been any well-grounded cause of complaint of military interference with elections. No such Instance is cited in the report of the majority. It refers, it, is true, to military interference during the Rebellion, and especially in 1863. , All else is mere assertion without instances of proof. The monstrous frauds perpetrated in the State of New York in 1868 became the subject of Congressional investigation at the ensuing session of Congress, and were followed by a report suggesting National legislation to guard against the recurrence of such frauds in the future election of members of the House of Representatives. The act of 1870, entitled, “An act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several Btates of this Union, and for other purposes” was, to a considerable extent, the outgrowth of such investigations. The enforcement of the provisions of this act as amended in 1871 has had the most wholesome tendency to secure free and honest elections. In the Presidential and Congressional contest of 1876, as Intensely exciting as any In our history, Its enforcement purged the canvass of all successful attempts at fraud In the same city where outrages upon the ballot-box and iD counting votes ran riot in the canvass of 1868. A committee of the Forty-fourth CoDgress was charged with the investigation of the election of 1876 In that city. In the report of the Democratic majority we find the following language: This happy result (a free, fair and honest election) was the consequence of the co-operation between the official advisers of the city abd United States officers. The party organizations by their regulations and orders made the city police one in action along, with the United States Marshals. Whether this work, which is unexampled, should he accounted a Republican work through their Federal Election law, or the work of the local authorities and organisms, inspired by a desire for an honest vote among tbe people who were especially jealous of it on account of what waa occurring elsewhere, one thing the committee mast report: That it approximated as neai to perfection as it was possible to do. There were no riots, no fights, uo bayonets, no disturbance, no conflicts of authority, and none of the concomitants which accompany fraud and endanger free institutions. The people of the country owe a tribute of respect to the polioe of a city of more than a million inhabitants, and to tbe United States officers, who numbered thousands, for harmony of action between the various officers, so as to illustrate to all the world how the Imperial Island City can conduct herself under great excitement, and in view of startling events. A statute which has been found an agent or even a factor in working out such benign results as these should not be dispensed w.th. This extra session opened with a bold avowal that its repeal should be forced upon the Executive ana country as a condition of . granting the supplies. Such was the dictate of the caucus to Its partisans. Aftci weary months of failure to accomplish its repeal, the design is now apparent in some way to thwart its execution and open wide the door for exclusive State supervision in all elections. The present is not a propitious tinie to attempt interference with its operation. No effort is to be spared to render it inoperative. The gravity of the situation is a sufficient warning for the exercise of the utmost caution. When it is more than intimated that the execution of this law is to be forcibly resisted in the next National contest unless it is in the meantime repealed, we ■ cannot give our consent to weaken or embarrass in any respect the power of the civil officers of the United States to enforce] its provisions. ! It Is to remain a law of the land. All efforts for its repeal have been for the present abandoned. It is the Constitutional duty of the President to see that it is faithfiilly exe- i cuted. Many of Its provisions are applicable s to and only to be enforced on the day an election is held, Why should the authority to use all lawful and Constitutional means to execute it be suspended' or crippled »n that dav 1 To whatever extent this may bh done, the law will be rendered a nullity so far as it is' a law for such days only. Why rhould the daT'^etwrtirtoet»xW?pted'' i ffom fhrbjyifiP' tion of this or any other statute? Surelv, tbe net d may be as great on that day as on any

other. A proposal to Impose like reetrlctiona at every place where a n urt Is to he held on the Fourth of July, or Eighth of January, or any other holiday or anniversary that la to be celebrated or observed, would be met with the Jeer* or contempt of *ll good men. The laws should he enforced and executed on all days and at all times and place*. To abdicate the authority of the Government of the United states to execute Its Las on the day of election would be a fatal mistake, and constitute a precedent of the most dangerous ebarseter. Tne reasoning of the report of the majority culminates at last In the unconditional avowal that all elections are State elections, and that no law of Congress can control or Interfere with the officers ot a Sule at any State election, unless the State authorities invoke the aid of the General Govetnm. nt as provided In the Constitution. Th s is asserting the pernicious dogma of State supremacy In its most obnoxious form. Tbe provision of tbeConatltutlon of the United States that “it and tbe laws” which shall be male In pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, anything In the Constitution or l .ws of any State to -the. contrary notwithstanding, is rudely thrust aside and ignored, and tbe exploded theory of paramount State sOVere guty is substituted in its stead. Upon this topic the President fitly says: Under the sweeping terms of tbe bill the National Government is effectually shut out from the exercise of the right, and from the discharge of the imperative duty, to use ita whole Executive power whenever required for tbe enforcement of its laws at the places and times whon and where its elections are h6ld. Tbe employment of its organized armed foroe for any such purpose would be an offense against the law unless called for by, and therefore upon the permission of, the authorities of the State in which the occasion arises. What is this but the substitution of the discretion of the State Governments for the discretion of the Government of the United States as to the pertormancc of its own duties? in my judgment, this is an abandonment of its obligations by tbe National Government, a subordination of the National authority anti intrusion of the Btate supervision over National duties, whtth amounts in spirit and tendency to State auprt nuicy. Under the Constitution it is the duty of ihe Executive to apply the test of his own judgment to every measure submitted to him by Congress. That duty he cannot neglect without violation of his official oath. The right to exercise his judgment unre\ strained by prevailing opinion in either branch of the Ucgisla'ive Department needs no vindication lu behalf of the President. Deeming these suggestions contained as well in the message reierrcd to the Committee us in the early one commented upon by the majority, upon the main features at issue, and touching the impropriety ot incorporating general legi.-latlon into appro; nation bills, eminently wise and in harmony with the course of legislation and the better practice of many of the States, the minority cannot conclude their views without placing on record an emphatic and unqualified protest against the undignified and disrespectful tone prevailing in the majority report toward ihe oflic al cominunieat ous from the Chief Magistrate of the Nation. Concurring as we do with ttie views so well expressed and so strongly enforced in the mi s-age under consideration, we do not deem it advisable or necessary to dwell at greater length on the subject \Ve concur in the conclusion of the report of the majority, that the Committee be discharged lrora its further consideration. A. G. Lapham, George 1). Koiiinson, William McKinley, Jr., Charles G. Williams, Edwin \VTllbtß.