The Anderson intelligencer. (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, May 08, 1879, Image 2
E. B. MURRAY, Editor.
THURSDAY HORNING, MAY 8, 1879.
THE ARMY BILL YETO.
Contrary :o the belief of the more
conservative portion of the country, Mr.
Hayes has vetoed the Army Appropria?
tion bill, and. thus laid down to the Dem?
ocratic majority in Congress the gauntlet
for a fight between the legislative and
the executive departments of the gov?
ernment opon the very issues which
Congress his invited. The veto mes?
sage has very little either of reason or
excuse in it, and is entirely inconsistent
with the position which President Hayes
occupied while a member of Congress.
During that time he is said to have voted
for the very laws which are now sought
to be repealed as riders to one of the
appropriation bills. It was, therefore,
all right to vote for the enactment of
these laws as a part of an appropriation
bill, but it is now a despotic exercise of
power to attempt to repeal them in the
same manner in which they were enact?
ed. Then, it was for the interest of the
Republican party that the laws should
be passed, and now it is for the interest
of the same party that they should not
be repealed; and therefore Mr. Hayes,
forgetful of his sacred responsibilities
under the high oath of his office to faith?
fully and impartially administer the
government, prefers to be consistent to
his views of party advantage rather than
to adhere to the principles which he has
sanctioned by his own votes on repeated
occasions. Mr. Hayes admits that the
practice of engrafting general legislation
on appropriation bills is sanctioned by
repeated practice for sixty years, and
that it is not in conflict with tho consti?
tution. Then he practically admits that
Congress has the right to pass bills in
such form as it sees fit, and if so, then it
is tho President's duty to consider the
measures presented upon their own
merits. If the laws are good, then tbsy
should 'be approved, no matter in what
form they are passed, and the President
ha: AO more right to object to the form
of the law which is constitutional and
advantageous to the country than the
Governor of this State would have to
veto an act of the Legislature because
the sections did not come in the order he
would have preferred. Mr. Hayes does
not like the practice of engrafting gene?
ral legislation upon appropriation bills,
but it is sot contrary to law nor to pre?
cedent, and his Excellency, by his veto
on this ground, rises to censure the exec?
utives and the legislatures for the past
sixty years, and at the same time places
his unqualified condemnation upon his
own political career in Congress.
Nor is his second ground of veto any
more ably sustained. He admits that
already the posse comitatus' clause of
an appropriation bill, which he himself
approved two years ago, prevents the use
of the army at the polls, and hence a
mere repetition of an existing law is no
sufficient cause for vetoing an appropri?
ation bill. If the original law is in
force, repeating it can do no possible
harm. What the President says about
protecting federal elections is all very
well, if tho States are to be considered as
colonies, to be ruled and coerced into a
proper discharge of their duty by the
administration; but if this is a free gov?
ernment of equal States, then the as?
sumption that the State laws will not
protect State'and federal elections alike,
i is one step in the direction of monarch; al
'< *vpower, for if the right to protect (?)
federal elections is given to the adminis?
tration, the exercise of discretion as to
what is proicciicn, and where ii is neces'
sory, are concomitants of that power
which make it dangerous in the extreme.
If protection is necessary, then the law
has provided how the Governor or the
Legislature of any State mr.y properly
obtain that protection. The law, as
framed to meet this end by the statesmen
of America in the better days of the
Republic, when the interest of the whole
country rose high above party advan?
tages, was wise and ample. It admitted
the integrity of the States, and did not
place them under the surveillance of
the national executive, who is liable to
all of the bias and prejudice incident to
self-interest or party acrimony. If it is
admitted that the President is the auto?
crat of the Republic, with supreme
power to coerce the States and compel
them to execute their laws, as he soes
proper for them to be executed, then Mr.
Hayes is right about the propriety of
the national executive having power and
authority to protect (?) the right to vote
in federal elections. The present laws,
however, were passed as war measures,
and were never intended to sanction
such a doctrine. Their ose was intend?
ed for the Southern States as a penalty
for secfcision, and a guaranty of the en?
forcement of the constitutional amend?
ments. They have since been used
by designing and ambitious administra?
tions to thwart the will of the people,
and under the plea of protection (?) to
overthrow free elections and control the j
ballot-box. Any laws which tend to
concentrate power in the hands of one j
man, are destructive of republican gov?
ernment', and Mr. Hayes' veto is as weak J
in its comments upon the expediency of
the proposed legislation as it is presump?
tuous and inconsistent on the other
points.
The message, however, shows some
things which are well worthy of the
calm consideration of the wholo people,
whose rights it has, upon the merest pre?
tences, set at defiance. First, and of
most importance, it shows that President
Hayes is a thorough partisan, and as
such is under the control of a party
which is utterly unscrupulous in its
greed for power. It will condemn to?
day, if its necessities require, what it
advocated yesterday to promote its own
interests. The message next shows that
the Republicans are bold and reckless in
their determination to retain power, and
are prepared to go any lengths that may
be necessary to achieve their ends. They
cry revolution at the Democrats for at?
tempting to undo what they themselves
have repeal!? done, and iu the identi?
cal way. They charge despotism upon
Congress for passing a bill which has
twice received a majority in the House
of Representatives and once in the
Senate, and yet the President, with an
exercise of unprecedented power, vetoes
this bill, thereby rendering the despotism
that of one man instead of that of Con?
gress. It makes this assumption of
power on the part of Mr. Hayes the
more appalling to compare it with the
past history of legislation in this coun?
try. His is the first veto of a regular
appropriation bill since the foundation
of the government, and is also the first
veto of a bill repealing an existing law.
All previous Presidents have held that
where a majority of the American peo?
ple, by their representatives in Congress,
desired to repeal any law, that it was
unbecoming them to object to such re?
peal. Not so with Mr. Hayes. He
came into office in defiance of a majori?
ty of the American people, and is ever
willing to show his gratitude to the
usurping minority who placed him there
by continuing the defiance of the popu?
lar will. Taken altogether the message
shows an utter disregard for precedents,
a-firmly settled purpose of usurpation,
an intensely partisan spirit and an aston?
ishing h.ck of argument.
THE DEMOCRATIC CRISIS.
The Republican party has for the past
six years been playing the bully with the
Democrats, who have not had the discre?
tion to avoid issue, with them nor the
nerve to meet them when presented.
The members of the Democratic party
have always been apologizing for its po?
sitions and cringing to know what the
country will think of them, instead of
doing what their judgment tells them is
right, and then defending it before the
country. They have not sought by a
firm and resolute course to lead public
opinioo, but have tried to follow it, and
in the endeavor have failed, because to
have followed it would have required
them to become Republicans in many
of the States. The Democratic party
appears just like a hug.-' army, capable of
immense conquest, but unofficered, act?
ing without concert, and therefore being
repeatedly whipped by an inferior but
skilfully officered enemy. It has made
the mistake of trying to get a party out
of power by conciliation, when all history
has shown this to be an impossibility.
They bave practically said to the Re?
publicans, if you will let us do so we will
turn you out of the offices of the gov?
ernment and take them ourselves, to which
mode.-t proposition the Republicans have
repeatedly replied by a howl of treason,
rebellion and revolution which has terri?
fied the timid Democrats, and caused
them to immediately begin apologizing
and begging the country to forgive them.
It has really become painful to witness
this state of things, and it is to be hoped
that its termination is at hand. The Re?
publicans have bluffed us on finance, and
when defeated by near half a milliou
votes for the Presidency, they had easy
work to frighten the Democracy out of
taking the prize which they had stumbled
upon. It was then plead that the Demo?
cratic party ought to be conciliatory, and
that it would appeal to the country for
vindication against the fraud on the bal?
lot, and that its moderation in asserting
its rights after so great a victory would
secure for it in future an overwhelming
triumph at the polls. If concession and
conservatism could bave done any good
for the Democratic party or for the coun?
try, then was the time. What has been
the result? Let the elections held since
that eventful period tell. Wc bave not
gained a single State. Hence we have
not been benefited. This, however, is
not the worst. We bave lost heavily in
our Congressional majority, and have
lost the States of New York, New Jersey
and-Connecticut, and therefore the policy
of concession has as usual benefited only
those to whom concessions have been
made. This is the natural result of the
course pursued, for it is bound to impress
the independent voter that the Demo?
crats are acting simply from the stand?
point of party advantage, and are not
fighting for great national principles,
which should not be compromised on the
mere grounds of expediency.
The application of these remarks is
evident Another crisis is upon the
Democratic party, and brought on, too,
by its own deliberate and presistent
course. Wc believe its action up to this
time has been wise and advantageous, if
it has the spirit and resolution to press
its policy to the end, but if it has been
simply a feeler and at the bid of the
President, over whose inauguration the
party has already backed down, there is
tobe another stampede or another surren?
der, then the whole contest has been a
a ridiculous and egregrious blunder,
which it will be extremely difficult, if it is
possible at all, to retrieve before the
next Presidential election. If we are to
continue forever yielding and receding
from the policy we declare our intention
to act upon, our party will come into
contempt before the people, and on the
very threshold of triumph it will vanish
from the political powers of the country.
Voters do not like a weak, vascillating
and cowardly political party any more
than individuals do a craven man.
They do not like to givo their suffrages
to a party which is either unable or un?
willing to have them counted when cast.
' We have already been so unfortunate as
to display the inability in the Presiden?
tial contest, and it is therefore highly
important that no further temporization
or vacillation shall be indulged. The
country expects Congress to stand to the
position it has assumed, and if it did not
intend to do so it should never bave be?
gun this awkward business. We can
make nothing by concession. By pursu?
ing the policy begun we can triumph.
The road backwards leads to defeat,
while that in front leads to victory, and
we should move on along the whole line.
Secretary Sherman is in consultation
with his friends as to the propriety of
becoming the Republican candidate for
Governor of Ohio this fall, with a view
of running for the Presidency next year.
Mr. Hayes secured promotion in this
way, and his Secretary of the Treasury
seems willing to follow in his footsteps.
The ability of the Republicans to elect
their candidate for Governor is, however,
an important consideration, which is no
doubt the ground of the consultation.
The Honorable John had better not run,
for if he does there is a strong probabil?
ity of being defeated, and that is an end
to his presidential aspirations.
The Democratic party is committed
upon the army appropriation bill, and
should not now back down from the
position it has taken. The contingencies
ought to have been estimated before the
policy was adopted, and no retreat should
now be sounded simply because the
enemy appears in line of battle. It
would be puerile in the extreme to have
forced an extra session, and spent weeks
over the army appropriation bill, if it
was intended to let the measure rest
simply on the President's approval. The
party cannot consistently recede now
without stultifying itself.
THE VETO.
The President's Reasons for Opposing the
Army Appropriation Bill.
The following is the Message of the
President of the United States returning
to the House of Representatives the bill
entitled "An Act making appropriations
for the support of the army for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 18S0, and for other
purposes."
To the Home of Representatives:
I have maturely considered the impor?
tant questions presented by the bill en?
titled "An Act making appropriations
for the support of the army for tue fiscal
year ending June 30,1880, and for other
purposes," and 1 now return it to the
House of Representatives, in which it
originated, with my objections to its ap?
proval.
The bill provides in the usual form for
the appropriations required for the sup?
port of the army during the next fiscal
year. If it contained no other provisions
it would receive my prompt approval.
It includes, however, further legislation,
which, attached as it is to appropriations
which are requisite for the efficient per?
formance of some of the most necessary
duties of the government, involved ques?
tions of the greatest character.
the law a8 it stands.
The sixth section of the bill is amen?
datory of the statute now in force in re?
gard to the authority of persons in the
civil, military and naval service of the
United States, "at the place where any
general or special election is held in any
State;" This statute was adopted Feb?
ruary 25,1865, after a protracted debate
in the Senate and almost without oppo?
sition in the House of Representatives,
by the concurrent votes of both of the
leading political parties of the country,
and became a law by the approval of
President Lincoln. It was re-enacted in
1874 in the Revised Statutes of the Uni?
ted States?sections 2,002 and 5,528,
which are as follows:
Section 2,002.?No military or naval
officer, or other person engaged in the
civil, military or naval service of the
United States, shall order, bring, keep
or have under his authority or control
any troops or armed men at the place
where any general or special election is
held in any State, unless it be necessary
to repel the armed euemies of the United
States or to keep the peace at the polls.
Sec. 5,528.?Every officer of the army
or navy, or other person in the civil, mil?
itary or naval service of the United
States, who orders, brings, keeps or has
under his authority or control any troops
or armed men at any place where a gen?
eral or special election is held in any
State, unless such force be necessary to
repel armed enemies of the United States
or to keep the peace at the polls, shall be
fined not more than $5,000 and suffer im?
prisonment at bard labor not less than
three months nor more than five years.
effect of the amendment.
The amendment proposed in this stat?
ute in the bill before me omits from both
of the foregoing sections the words "or
to keep the peace at the polls." The
effect of the adoption of this amendment
may be considered?
First?Upon the right of the United
States government to me military force
to keep the peace at the elections for
members of Congress; and
Second?Upon the right of the govern?
ment by civil authority to protect these
elections from violence and fraud.
In addition to the sections of the stat?
ute above quoted, the following provis?
ions of law relating to the use of the mil?
itary power at the elections are now in
force:
Sec. 2,003.?No officer of the army or
navy of the United States shall prescribe
or fix or attempt to prescribe or fix, by
proclamation, order or otherwise, the
qualifications of voters in any State, or
in any manner interfere with the freedom
of any election in any State or with the
exercise of the free right of suffrage in
any State.
Seb. 5,529.?Every officer or other per?
son in the military or naval service who
by force, threat, imtitnidation, order, ad?
vice or otherwise prevents or attempts to
prevent any qualified voter of any State
Lom freely exercising the right of suf?
frage at any general or special election in
such State shall be fined not more than
$5,000 and imprisonment at hard labor
not more than fhn years.
Sec 5,530.?i?? ..y officer of the army
or navy who prescribes or fixes, or at?
tempts to prescribe or fix, whether by
proclamation, order or otherwise, the
qualification of voters at any election in
any State shall be punished as provided
in the preceding section.
Sec. 5,531.?Every officer or other per?
son in the military or naval service who
by force, threat, intimidation, order or
otherwise compels or attempts to compel
any officer holding an election in any
State to receive a vote from a person not
legally qualified to vote, or who imposes
or attempts to impose any regulations for
conducting any general or special elec?
tion in a State different from those pre?
scribed by law, or who interferes in any
manner with any officer of an election in
the discharge of his duty, shall be pun?
ished as prescribed in section 5,529.
Sec. 5,532.?Every person convicted of
any of the offences specified in the five
preceding sections shall, in addition to
the punishments therein severally pre?
scribed, be disqualified from holding any
office of honor, profit or trust uuder the
United States; out nothing in those sec?
tions shall be construed to prevent any
officer, soldier, sailor or marine from ex?
ercising the right of suffrage iti any elec?
tion district to which he may belong, if
otherwise qualified according to the laws
of the State in which he offers to vote.
the posse comitatus.
The foregoing enactments would 6cera
to be sufficient to prevent military inter?
ference with the elections ; but the last
Congrt^r, to remove all apprehension of
such interference, added to this body of
law section fifteen of an act entitled "An
Act making appropriations for the sup?
port of the army for the fiscal year end?
ing June 30, 1879, and for other pur?
poses," approved June 18,1878, which is
as follows:
Sec. 15.?From and after the passage
of this act it shall not be lawful to em?
ploy any part of the army of the United
States as a posse comitatus or otherwise
for the purpose of executing the laws,
except in such cases and under such cir?
cumstances as such employment of said
force may be expressly authorized by the
constitution or by act of Congress, and
no money appropriated by this act shall
be used to pay any of the expenses in?
curred in the employment of any troops
in violation of this section, and any per?
son wilfully violating the provisions of
this section shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction there?
of shall be punished by a fine not exceed?
ing $10,000 or imprisonment not exceed?
ing two years, or both such fine and im?
prisonment.
Thin act passed the Senate after full
consideration, without a single vote re?
corded against it on its final passage, and
by a majority of more than two-thirds it
was concurred in by the House of Reprc
sentatives.
****** * ?
From this brief review of the subject it
sufficiently appears that under existing
laws there can be no military interfer?
ence with the elections. No case of
such interference has in fact occurred
since the passage of the act last referred
to. No officer of the United States has
appeared under orders at any place of
election in any State. No complaint
even of the presence of United States
troops has been made in any quarter. It
may, therefore, be confidently stated that
there is no necessitv tor the enactment of
section 6 of the hilf before me to prevent
military interference at the elections.
The laws already in force are all that is
required for that end.
federal authority at elections.
But that part of section 6 of this bill
which is significant and vitally important
is the clause which, if adopted, will de?
prive the civil authorities of the United
States of all power to keep the peace at
Congressional elections. The Congres?
sional elections in every district in a very
important sense are justly a matter of
political interest and concern throughout
the whole country. Each State and
every political party is entitled to the
share of power which is conferred by the
legal and constitutional suffrage. It is
the right of every citizen possessing the
qualifications prescribed by law to cast
one unintimidated ballot and to bave his
ballot honestly counted. So long as the
exercise of this power and the enjoyment
of this right are common and equal,
practically as well as formally, submis?
sion to the suffrage will be accorded loy?
ally and cheerfully, and departments of
government will feel the true vigor of the
popular will thus expressed.
constitutional authorization.
Two provisions of the constitution au?
thorize legislation by Congress for the
regulation of the Congressional elections.
Section 4 of article 1 of the constitution
declares:
The times, places and manner of hold?
ing elections for Senators and Represen?
tatives shall be prescribed in each State
by the Legislature thereof, but the Con?
gress may, at any time, by law make or
alter such regulations, except as to the
places of choosing Senators.
The fifteenth amendment to the con?
stitution is as follows:
Section 1.?The right 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.?The Congress shall have power
to enforce this article by appropriate leg?
islation.
The Supreme Court has held that this
amendment invests the citizens of the
United States with a new constitutional
right which is within the protecting
power of Congress. That right the
Court declares to be exemption from dis?
crimination in the exercise of the elec?
tive franchise, on account of race, color
or previous condition of servitude. The
power of Congress to protect this right
by appropriate legislation is expressly
affirmed by the Court. National legisla?
tion to provide safeguards for free and
honest elections is necessary, as experi?
ence has shown, not only to secure the
right to vote to the enfranchised race at
the South, but also to prevent fraudulent
voting iu the large cities of the North.
Congress has, therefore, exercised the
power conferred by the constitution, and
has enacted certain laws to prevent dis?
criminations on accouut of race, color or
previous condition of servitude, and to
punish fraud, violence and intimidation
at federal elections.
existing provisions of law.
Attention is called to the following
sections of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, namely:?
Section 2,004, which guarantees all
citizens the right to vote, without distinc?
tion on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.
Sections 2,005 and 2006, which guaran?
tee to all citizens equal opportunity,
without discrimination, to perform all the
acts required by law as a prerequisite or
qualification for voting.
Section 2,022, which authorizes the
United States Marshal and his deputies
to keep the peace and preserve order at
federal elections.
Section 2,024, which expressly author?
izes the United States Marshal and bis
deputies to summon a posse comitatus
whenever they, or any of them, are for?
cibly resisted in the execution of their
duties under the law and are prevented
from executing their duties by violence.
Section 5,522, which provides for the
punishment of the crime of interfering
with the supervisors of election and dep?
uty marshals in the discharge of their
duties at the elections of Representatives
in Congress.
These are some of the laws on this sub?
ject which it is the duty of the Execu?
tive Department of the government to
enforce.
The intent and effect of the sixth sec?
tion of this bill is to prohibit all the civil
officers of the United States, under pen?
alty of fine and imprisonment, from em?
ploying any adequate civil force for this
purpose at the place where their enforce?
ment is most necessary?namely, at the
place where the Congressional elections
are held.
Among the most valuable enactments
to which I have referred are those which
protect the supervisors of federal elections
in the discharge of their duties at the
Eolls. If the pending legislation should
ecome the law there is no power vested
in any officer of the government to pro?
tect from violence the officers of the
United States engaged in the discharge of
their duties. Their rights and duties
under the law will remain; but the na?
tional government will be powerless to
enforce its own statutes. The States
may employ both military and civil power
to keep the peace and to enforce the laws
at State elections. It is now proposed
to deny to the United States even the
necessary civil authority to protect the
national elections. No sufficient reason
has been given for discrimination in fa?
vor of the State and against the national
authority.
premonitions of another veto.
If well founded objections exist against
the present national election laws all
good citizens should unite in their
amendment. The laws providing the
safeguards of the elections should be
impartial, just and efficient. They should,
if possible, he so non-partisan and fair in
their operation that the minority (the
party out or power) will have no just
grounds to complain. The present laws
have, in practice, unquestionably con?
duced to the prevention of fraud and vio?
lence at the elections. In several of the
States members of the different political
parties have applied for the safeguards
which they furnish. It is the right and
duty of the national government to enact
and enforce laws which will secure free
and fair Congressional elections. The
laws now in force should not be repeal?
ed, except in connection with the enact?
ment of measures which will better ac?
complish that important end. Believing
that section 6 of the bill before me will
weaken, if it does not altogether take
away, the power of the national govern?
ment to protect the federal elections by
the civil authorities, I am forced to the
conclusion that it ought not to receive
my approval.
riders in appropriation bills.
This section is, however, not presented
to me as a separate and independent
measure, but is, as has been stated, at?
tached to the bill making the usual an?
nual appropriations for the support of
the army. It makes a vital change in
the election laws of the country, which is
in no way connected with the use of the
army. It prohibits, under heavy penal?
ties, any person engaged in the civil ser?
vice of the United States from having
any force at the place of any election
prepared to preserve order, to make ar
rests, to keep the pence, or in any manner
to enforce the laws. This is altogether
foreign to the purpose of an army appro?
priation bill. The practice of tacking to
appropriation bills measures not perti?
nent to such bills did not prevail until
more than forty years alter the adoption
of the constitution. It has become a
common practice?all parties when in
power have adopted it. Many abuses
and great waste of public money have in
this way crept into appropriation bills.
The public opinion of the country is
against it. The States which have re?
cently adopted constitutions have gener?
ally provided a remedy for the evil by
enacting that no law shall contain more
than one subject, which shall he plainly
expressed in its title. The constitution
of more than half of the States contain
substantially this provision. The public
welfare will be promoted in many ways
by ft return to the early practice of the
government and to the true principle of
legislation, which requires that every
measure shall stand or fall according to
its own merits. If it were understood
that to attach to an appropriation a
measure irrelevant to the general object
of the bill would imperil and probably
prevent its final passage and approval, a
valuable reform in the parliamentary
practice of Congress would be accom
Clished. The best justification that has
een offered for attaching irrelevant ri?
ders to appropriation bills is thatitisdone
for convenience sake to facilitate the pas?
sage of measures which are deemed ex?
pedient by all the branches of govern?
ment which participate in legislation.
It cannot be claimed, that there is any
such reason for attaching this amend?
ment of the election laws to the Army
Appropriation bill. The history of the
measure contradicts this assumption. A
majority of the House of Representatives
in the last Congress was in favor of sec?
tion 6 of this bill. It was known that a
majority of the Senate was opposed to it,
ana that as a separate measure it could
not be adopted. It was attached to the
Army Appropriation bill to compel the
Senate to assent to it. It was plainly
anu .v.nced to the Senate that the Army
Appropriation bill would not be allowed
to pass unless the proposed amendments
of the election laws were adopted with
it. The Senate refused to assent to the
bill on account of this irrelevant section.
Congress thereupon adjourned without
passing an appropriation bill for the
army, and the present extra session of
the Forty-fifth Congress became necessa?
ry to furnish the means to carry on the
government.
***** * * *
THE ACTIOX IX EXTRA 8ESS:tON.
Upon the assembling of this Congress,
in pursuance of a call for an extra ses?
sion, which was made necessary by the
failure of the Forty-fifth Congress to
make the needful appropriations for the
support of the government, the question
was presented whether the attempt made
in the last Congress to engraft by con?
struction a new principle upon the con?
stitution should be persisted in or not.
This Congress has ample opportunity
and time to pass the appropriation bills
and also to enact any political measures
which may be determined upon in sepa?
rate bills by the usual and orderly meth?
ods of proceeding. But the majority of
both houses have deemed it wise to
adhere to the principles asserted and
maintained in the last Congress by the
majority of the House of Representa?
tives. That principle is that the House
of Representatives has the sole right to
originate bills for raising revenue and;
therefore, has the right to withhold ap?
propriations upon which the existence of
the government may depend, unless the
Senate and the President shall give their
assent to any legislation which the House
may see fit to attach to appropriation
bills. To establish this priuciple is to
make a radical, dangerous and uncon?
stitutional change in the character of our
institutions. The various departments
of the government and the army and
navy are established by the constitution
or by laws passed in pursuance thereof.
Their duties are clearly defined and their
support is carefully provided for by law.
The money required for this purpose has
been collected from the people, and is
now in the Treasury ready to be paid out
as soon as the appropriation bills are
passed. Whether appropriations are
made or not the collection of taxes will
go on. The public money will accumu?
late in the Treasury. It was not the in?
tention of the frainers of the constitu?
tion that any single branch of the gov?
ernment should have the power to dic?
tate conditions upon which this treasure
should be applied to the purposes for
which it was collected. Any such inten?
tion, if it had been entertained, would
have been plainly expressed in the con?
stitution. That a majority of the Senate
now concurs in the claim of the House
adds to the gravity of the situation, but
does not alter the question at issue.
EFFECT OF THE XEW DOCTRINE.
The new doctrine, if maintained, will
result in a consolidation of unchecked
and despotic power in the House of Rep?
resentatives. A bare majority of the
House will become the government.
The executive will no longer be what the
framers of the constitution intended?an
equal and independent branch of the
government. It is clearly the constitu?
tional duty of the President to exercise
his discretieu and judgment upon all bills
presented to him without constraint or
duress from any other branch of the
government. To say that it majority of
either, or both the houses of Congress,
may insist on the approval of a bill un?
der the penalty of stopping all of the
operations of the government for want
of the necessary supplies is to deny to
the Executive that share of the legisla?
tive power which is plainly conferred by
the second section ot the seventh article
of the constitution. It strikes from the
constitution the qualified negative of the
President. It is said that this should be
done because it is the peculiar function
of the House of Representatives to rep?
resent the will of the people. But no
single branch or department of the gov?
ernment has exclusive authority to speak
for the American people. The most au?
thentic and solemn expression of their
will is contained in the constitution of
the United States. By that constitution
they have ordained and established a
government, whose powers are distribu?
ted among co-ordinate branches, which,
as far as possible, consistently with a
harmonious co-operation, are absolutely
independent of each other. The people
of the country are unwilling to see the
supremacy of the constitution replaced
by the omnipotence of any department
of the government.
A BAD PRECEDENT.
The enactmenl of this bill into a law
will establish a precedent, which will
tend to destroy the equal independence
of the several branches of the govern?
ment. Its principles places not merely
the Senate and the executive, but the
judiciary also, under the coercive dicta?
tion of the House. The House alone
will be the judge of what constitutes a
grievance and also of the means and
measure of redress. An act of Congress
to protect elections is now the grievance
complained of. But the House may on
the same principle determine that any
other act of Congress, a treaty made by
the President, with the advice and con?
sent of the Senate, a nomination or ap?
pointment to office, or that a decision or
opinion of the Supreme Court is a griev?
ance, and that the measure of redress is
to withhold the appropriations required
for the support of the offending branch
of the government.
DANGEROUS VIOLATION OK THE CONSTI?
TUTION.
Believing that this bill is a dangerous
violation of the spirit and meaning of
the constitution, I am compelled to re?
turn it to the House, in which it origina?
ted, without my approval. The qualified
negative with which the constitution in
vests tlie President is a trust that involves
a duty which I cannot decline to per?
form.
With a firm and conscientious purpose
to do what I can to preserve unimpaired
the constitutional powers and equal in?
dependence, not merely of the executive,
hut of every branch of the government
which will be imperilled by the adoption
of the principle of this bill, I desire
earnestly to urge upon the House of
Representatives a return to the wise and
wholesome usage of the earlier days of
the Republic which excluded from ap?
propriation bills all irrelevant legislation.
By this course you will inaugurate an
important reform in the method of Con?
gressional legislation. Your action will
be in harmony with the fundamental
principles of the constitution and the
patriotic sentiment of nationality which
is their firm support, and you will restore
to the country that feeling of confidence
and security and repose which arc so es?
sential to the prosperity of all of our
fellow citizens.
Rutherford B. Hayes.
TUE WAY TO MEET THE VETO.
Our Senators nnd RoprcHcntutlvcs Give
Their Views.
Correspondence Uetilt and Courier,
Washino-ton*, April 20.
Thinking our people would be interest?
ed to know the views of their representa?
tives in regard to the present state of
afTairs in Congress, I called last night
upon the several Senator? and Represen?
tatives in the order in which they appear
below, and obtained the following ex?
pressions of opinions. Only the sub?
stance of what was said in each instance
is given, as a full report would be too
long for publication :
senator butler
said, in substance, that he thinks the re?
spective measures should now be sepa?
rated, and the President tried at once
with the so-called political "riders
first with that one which is directed to
repealing the section of the Revised
Statutes authorizing the use of troops at
the polls, and then with the others in
succession. "He phould have all the
vetoing he Wants," If the Republican
members choose to filibuster they must
bear the responsibility of an indefinite
continuance of the session. No action
whatever should be taken in regard to
the appropriation bills until the Presi?
dent has acted upon the political meas?
ures. He would be compelled to give
his reasons for vetoing them, and this
would put him on the defensive. When
the American people see him opposing
the majority simply for party purposes,
his course would be bound to recoil upon
him. The issue with him, upon these
riders, bhould be made as sharp and de?
cisive as possible If the Northern Dem?
ocrats can't whip the fight in such issues
they certainly cannot upon any. Num?
bers of the Republican members have
declared that even they are ready to vote
for the passage of the riders if they are
brought up in separate form. Senator
Butler said in conclusion that this whole
fight ought to have been conducted solely
by the Northern Democrats for reasons
easily understood. The Southern Dem?
ocrats have acted in good faith in all that
they have done in the matter, but it was
not their fight.
congressman tillman,
who dropped in at this point, added that,
in his opinion, the best reason in the
world why the Democratic majority
should not stand on their present line is
that the Republicans wish them to do so.
The Southern people ought to have kept
silent and let them fight it out at the
North; the shoe pinches them more
than us, as nearly all of the cities having
over 20,000 population are in the North.
Several of the Southern States have not
one. "It is their funeral, not ours."
* * * Hayes and his party have put
themselves on record in favor of the use
of the army at the polls, and we could
not have a better issue if we desired one,
or had made it for the purpose. If
Haye3 were to yield he would take the
wind out of our sails. We can yield
gracefully; pass the army appropriation
bill and then say with truth and point:
"We have done all we could to get rid of
this tyranny and disgrace, and have
failed, and now, rather than show any
factious spirit, or show the semblance of
one, we will pass the appropriation bill,
and let the people judge between the
two parties." This course would help
the South aud strengthen the Northern
Democracy as well.
congressman o'connor
said that he regards the situation as a
very embarrassing one. I think, said he,
an error was committed at the last ses?
sion (of the Forty-fifth Congress) in in?
sisting upon the repeal, by way of a
rider upon the appropriation hills, of
any more than the juror's test oath, and
the providing a new mode for drawing
jurors in the U. S. Courts. When I
found that it was to be insisted upon
that the Federal election laws providing
for supervisors, along with the clause for
the repeal of the test oath and the inhi?
bition of the use of the army at the polls,
were to be repealed; I thought that it
would result in the failure of the appro?
priation bills and the necessity for an
extra session. In the Democratic caucus
held upon the reassembling of Congress
there was a strong disposition to intro?
duce these repealing measures separately
and submit them to the President for his
approval as separate and independent
enactments. But this course failed be?
cause it had been given out by the Re?
publicans that they were prepared to
take issue with the Democracy at every
step and fight them, point by point, upon
all these measures, whether introduced
separately or as riders upon the appro?
priation bills, and with this avowed pur?
pose on their part it was held by promi?
nent leaders of the Democracy who were
familkr with the rules of the House that
there was no course left for them by
which to effect the repeal of the obnox?
ious laws save by putting them on the
appropriation bills as riders, for as inde?
pendent measures the Republicans, un?
der the rules of the House, could fili?
buster and stave off a final vote indefi?
nitely. This resort of the Democracy,
which was thus seen to be indispensable,
has been urtfully used by the Republican
party in raising the cry of "Revolution,"
charging its initiation upon the Democ?
racy.
The impression, in the beginning of
the debate, among a majority of dispas?
sionate and uupartisan persons, was that
the President would not yield to the
clamors of his party, and that, rather
than the appropriations to carry on the
government should fail, he would sign
the bills with the repealing clauses an?
nexed, which clauses it was generally
admitted were harmless and not of great
importance. The character of the de?
bate which has followed has been de?
signed by the Republicans to solidify
partisan sentiment at the North, and
thereby, if possible, build up a solid sec?
tional North for the purpose of party
aggrandizement. The leading Republi?
cans of the House announced in the
course of the debate their willingness to
vote for the repealing clauses of the army
appropriation bill as independent meas?
ures, and it is well known that there has
been no objection to the repeal of the
jurors' test oath.
To-day we have the veto message of
the President in which he disapproves of
the army appropriation bill, not only for
the form and manner in which it has
been presented to him, but he disap?
proves of the repealing clause in sub?
stance. The legislative appropriation
hill, which is now before the Senate,
when passed by that body will also be
vetoed for reasons going to its substance
and not to the form and manner of its
passage. These measures c.innot be
passed over the President's veto by
the requisite two-thirds vote, and the
question now before us is, what course is
the wisest and most statesmanlike for us
to pursue in this exigency.
Just having read the President's mes?
sage I have not finally made up my mind
as to the coarse I would suggest, or he
ready to accept and vote for in the call
cus. My impression is, however, that
there will not be found a majority of the
House to oppose extending the appro?
priations by joint resolution and giving
to the country the opportunity of ex?
pressing itself, through the press and its
fublic men, upon the issues involved,
n the meantime, before any proller of
said extension is made, I think the re?
pealing clause in the army bill should be
passed separately and submitted to the
President for his approval.
The repeal of the jurors' test oath,
which is now annexed to the legislative
appropriation bill, and the proposed
modification of the supervisors' law,
should also be enacted in separate form
and submitted to him also. If these
measures, presented independently,
should be vetoed by the President, then
the Democracy, which is the party of
the Constitution, should take its stand
upon the Constitution and refuse to vote
.he taxes of the people unless their griev?
ances are redressed This is the unques?
tioned right of Congress as it was held
by the Commons of England for over
two hundred years. The ultimate result
cannot be told until the President has
had the opportunity of passing upon the
repeal of these measures whicn the rep?
resentatives of the people deem to be op?
pressive and obnoxious.
The issue for the repeal of the Federal
election laws came Irnm the Northern
wing of the Democratic party. They
were more concerned in the repeal of
these statutes than we of the South, for
the history of the legislation by which
they were enacted shows that they were
designed to affect the elections in the
Northern States, and principally in New
York, Philadelphia, and other large cities
of that section.
The purpose of the Republican party
is manifestly, by threats and intimida?
tion, (o force the North into a solid sec?
tional attitude in order to regain thereby
the power which they?the Republicans
?have lost by the past fourteen years of
corruption.
In 1867 when they controlled both
branches of Congress they bullied and
coerced the Executive, and now, with
the Legislature of the country in the
hands of the Democracy, intrenching
themselves behind the Executive, they
are repeating the same experiment of
forcing Congress to submit, in turn, to
the dictation of the President.
CONGRESSMAN EVINS
thinks a conservative course is the wisest
to be pursued, and indeed the only safe
one. The Democratic majority have
done all they could to secure the repeal
of the odious laws in question. It was
in the power of the President to defeat
their efforts, and he has exerted that
power. The responsibility for the fail?
ure rests upon htm and his party alone,
as the Democrats cannot pass the meas?
ures in the face of their opposition. We
ought now to accept defeat grucefully
and pass the appropriation bills at once,
without the political riders. We ought
even to pass them first and then offer
bills repealing the obnoxipns laws as
separate measures. This course would
leave the Republicans without excuse for
their opposition ; as we would be acting
in manifest and perfect good faith and
they could not say that we were holding
back the appropriations by way of threat.
If they refused at last to pass these meas?
ures we could go before the country and
let the people decide upon them. I have
no doubt as to what their decision would
be.
It is important for us to get these issues
before the country without affording any
occasion for having our motives so much
as doubted, and without the measures
themselves being entangled with any
other question. They should be fairly
and squarely presented for judgment
i upon their merits alone. By adopting
this course we would relieve ourselves of
any charge that we have used coercive
measures or questionable methods. We
should not allow ourselves, as Southern
men, to be diverted from what we think
is the true interest of the people, by any
pleas of party necessity on the part of
the Northern Democrats. We are really
the majority of the Democratic party in
each branch of Congress, and will be
held responsible for the legislation of
Congress. We have the right, therefore,
to dictate the policy to be pursued.
Any attempt to adjourn without passing
the appropriation bills will be considered
revolutionary by the country, and we
cannot afford to be put in that position.
We have been between the upper and
nether millstones long enough. We are
willing to do the voting and allow the
Northern Democrats to hold the offices,
but we claim the right to shape the
policy of the party for which we must
and will be held responsible. What
Conk ling said in his recent speech is true,
that we are the controlling power in both
branches, and while it may be very
pleasant for Northern politicians, seek?
ing their preferment, to keep up sectional
strife, our interests demand that we shall
have a cessation of such strife. Should
we adjourn without providing the means
of carrying on the government, I believe
it would solidify the North as much as
did the firing upon Fort Sumter in 1861.
Our Northern Democratic friends might
then find the tide too strong for them,
and leave us in the lurch by seeking new
alliances with the National or Green?
back party. We cannot afford to take
the risks which they can. We cannot
afford to play cat to their monkey any
longer. If there are any chestnuts to be
had they will get them?the burnt paws
are ours every time. They stand in a
very different position before the country
from ours. It is natural that the North?
ern people should look upon us with dis?
trust, coming as wc do into control of the
government so soon after the war, and
we must learn to labor and to wait.
1 do not mean that we should abandon
the struggle. Wc must renew it on every
occasion until we accomplish our pur?
pose, but we must confine ourselves to
the use of regular and constitutional
methods.
It is in no sense a "back down" for u<
to take this course. We have certainly
pressed the matter as far as we could.
I do not consider that the party has been
committed to doing anything more than
to exhaust all the constitutional and par?
liamentary means to secure the repeal of
these laws. The declarations of indi?
vidual members of the party in Congress
that wc would withhold the appropria- '
tions in event of a veto binds no one but
those who made them. There has cer?
tainly been no authoritative declaration
of the kind, and I fail to see how we
have been committed to such a course.
True, the Republicans have given this as
our "progiamme," but it will hardly be
considered incumbent upon us to stand
up to their declarations as to what wc in?
tend to do or not to do.
The discussion has done a great deal
of good already by awaking the people to
a sense of the real danger we are in of
having legislation which was the out?
growth ol war established as precedents
We were bound to protest against these
measures as soon as we came into power;
we have done so and have placed the Re?
publican party and the Executive on re?
cord as standing by bayonet rule, packed
juries and the use of all kinds of partisan
machinery to carry elections. We would
be unwise indeed to follow any course
now which would lose us this advantage
of the position, and furnish the Republi?
cans with material for an offensive cam?
paign on other grounds. We must be
circumspect, and I think the present oc?
casion lurnishes us with a needed oppor?
tunity of giving the lie to all the fierce
denunciations which have been directed
at us in every speech that hits been de?
livered on the Republican side of the
House, and to show to the country that
we can he safely trusted with power. A
further resort to any questionable means
for securing a repeal of these laws would
accomplish every purpose for which, tho
Republicans have labored through this
whole discussion.
Mr. Evins further explained that
though the Southern Democrats did not
inaugurate this fight they will he held
responsible for all the.consequences, aud
should now act with a regard to this fact.
He agreed with Mr. Bayard, he said, as to
the passage of these measures separately
at the outset until it was urged (by Ran?
dall aud others) that by factious opposi?
tion the Republicans could prevent the
passage of the measures for months.
They (the Republicans) declared in their
caucus that no legislation should be had
except the passage of the appropriation
bills without any riders, and that shut us
up to that mode of passing these meas?
ures if we should attempt to pass them at
all.
COJIfi R ess MAX rich ARDSOX
said: I think it injudicious to express any
decided opinion in advance of tue action
of the Democratic caucus, as I propose
to be controlled by its action. But I be?
lieve it would be well to pass, first, a sep?
arate bill prohibiting the use of United
States troops at the polls and of United
States marshals thereat, with power to
arrest without warrant and upon suspi?
cion, and thereby force the President to
commit himself to the policy of using
troops at the polls. He will veto that
bill and thereby place himself and his
party squarely before the country in fa?
vor of using United States troops at the
polls. Then we can after that consider
the question, what is to be done with tho
army appropriation bill.
congressman aiken
thinks there should be no compromise
whatever with the opposition. The fight
has been made upon principle, and
should not be abandoned on any account.
If the Republicans are willing to repeal
the obnoxious laws in separate form, they
could just as well repeal them in their
present connection. They say openly
now that they have never agreed to pass
them separatelv. Garfield explains that
he did not say he would vote for the re?
peal of the eight words "to keep the
peace at the polls," but for the repeal of
the whole statute in which these words
stand. To repeal that statute wotdd be
to give the President the very power
which is proposed to take away from
him, of sending troops to the polls under
cover of "preventing disturbance." No
question of mere policy should be con?
sidered for a moment; the Democrats
have asserted a high principle, have
fought the fight of faith, and if it is nec?
essary now to test the people's views,
every Democrat in Congress should re?
sign at once and appeal to the country.
This suggestion, as Mr. Aiken remarked,
is not likely to be acted upon.
senator hampton
was engaged when I called upon him,
and remarked only that the feeling
among Conservative Southern men is
that the two measures should now be
passed separately for the purpose of test?
ing the sincerity of the Republicans. The
Democrats can go before the country on
the issue if they refuse to allow them to
go through.
TH E DEMOCRATIC POLICY.
The Appropriation Hills to bo Delayed
Until the Sincerity of the President and
the Republican Party Can be Tented.
Washington, May 3.
The House Democratic caucus com?
mittee met this morning and it is under?
stood, agreed upon a measure to be sub?
mitted to the caucus if concurred in by
the Senate committee, which, under the
title of "A bill to prevent military inter?
ference at the polls," consists of the
sixth section of the vetoed army appro?
priation bill, with the words "civil offi?
cers" stricken out and a proviso added
that nothing in the bill shall be construed
as preventing the United States ar?
my to enforce the process of the United
States courts or to put down resistance
against the United States by armed men.
Later.?The Democratic members of
the House to-day held another caucus,
and after an hour's deliberation, defi?
nitely determined their line of action in
regard to the army appropriation bill,
and agreed upon the exact terms of the
measures to be separately passed in lieu
of the sixth section, it being also agreed
that all consideration of the remainder
of the bill shall be deferred until this in?
dependent political measure shall have
been acted upon by the President. It
will provide, in substance, that sections
2U02 and 2003 of the revised statutes
shall not be constructed as authorizing
the presence of United States soldiers at
the polls except under orders of the
President to repel armed enemies of the
United States, or in pursuance of consti?
tutional requirements, upon the applica?
tion of the Legislature of a State or of
the Governor when the Legislature can?
not be convened, to repress domestic vi?
olence. The bill will be accompanied
by a short preamble of an argumentative
nature, to,determine the phraseology of
which, and also to agree upon an effec?
tive title consumed considerable time to?
day. Among the titles suggested were
the following: "Bill to protect the ballot
box from military interference;" "Bill
to prevent the army and navy from in?
terfering with the freedom of elections;"
"Bill to prevent the control of elections
in the States by the army and navy of
the United States," and a "Bill to pre?
vent the use of the army at the polls and
to promote the freedom of elections." It
i> understood that the title finally adop?
ted is a "Bill to prevent interference by
the army with elections." The action
taken by the caucus is substantially in
accordance with an amended report pre?
sented to-day by the committee to whom
the whole project was recommitted yes?
terday. The proceedings are said to have
been characterized by a spirit of harmony
and good feeling.
THEY HAVE COME!
THOSE GRAIN CRADLES we spoke
of, and we hope you will call and see
them. We can offer you bargains.
_A. B. TOWERS & CO.
ANOTHER LOT
OF well-selected Goods that will not fail
to please the eye and fit the purse.
Call early and often. They are going off
rapidly.
A. B. TOWERS A CO.
STATE~0F SOUTH CAROLINA,
COUNTY OF ANDERSON.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
James T. Holland and Major C. Holland,
Plaintifta, against John Holland. Adaline
Holland. Mary Holland, Thomas Hol?
land, Mitla Holland, the children of Ma?
rion Holland, deceased, to wit: Annie
Holland and Mamie Holland, A. J.
Stringer and J. B. Lewis, Defendants.?
Suumumi for Relief?Complaint not Served.
To the Defendants John Holland, Adalinc
Holland. Mary Holland, Thomas Hol?
land, the children of Marion Holland, to
wit: Annie Holland and Mamie Hol?
land, A. J. Stringer and J. B. Lewis:
YOU ure hereby summoned and required
to answer the complaint in this ac?
tion, a copy of which is tiled in the office
of the Clerk of the Court of Common Picas
for Anderson County, and to serve a copy of
your answer to the said complaint on the
subscriber at his office, at Anderson, South
Carolina, within twenty days after the ser?
vice hereof, exclusive of the day of such
service; and if you fail to answer the com?
plaint within the time aforesaid, the plain?
tiff in this action will apply to the Court
for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated Mav G, A. D. 187!).
JOHN E. BREAZEALB,
PluiutillV Attorney.
To the Defendants John Holland, Adaline
Holland, Mary Holland, Thomas Hol?
land and Mitta Holland:
TAKE NOTICE that the complaint in
this action is for the continuation of the
sale of the Real Estate of William Holland,
deceased, and was filed in the olricc of the
Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas on
the UtD day of Mav. A. D. 1871).
JOHN K. BREAZEALB,
Plaintiffs Attorney.