CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



167 



berger Shcrwin, A. Herr Smith, William E. Smith, 

 Starin, Stone, Thomas, W. G. Thompson, Amos 

 Townsend, Oscar Turner, Tyler, J. T. Updegraff, 

 Thomas Updegraff, Valentine, Van Acrnam. Voorhis, 

 Wait, Washbura, C. G. Williams, Willits, Walter A. 

 Wood, Yocum, Thomas L. Young 104. 



NOT VOTING Acklen, Aiken, Bailey, Baker, Bar- 

 low, Beale, Belford, Boyd, Brag", Browne, Buckner, 

 Caldwell, Carlisle, Chalmers, Chittenden, Alvah A. 

 Clark, Clymer, Cox, Crapo, Crowley, Daggett, David- 

 son, Deuster, Dick, Dunn, Elam, Ewing, Felton.For- 

 sythe, Hall, Harmer, llaskell, Heihnan, Hill, Horr, 

 Hubbell, Jorgcnsen, Joyce, Kcifcr, Kelley, Ketcham, 

 Killinger, Lapham, Le Fcvre, Loring, Lounsbery, 

 Lowe, McCook, McGowan, McLane, Miller, Mitchell, 

 Money, Mullcr, O'Brien, O'Neill. Orth, Found, Pres- 

 cott, Price, Richmond, Ross, John W. Ryon, Sapp, 

 J. W. Singleton, Hezekiah B. Smith, Sparks, Ste- 

 phens, Thomas Turner, Urner, Van Voorhis, Ward, 

 White, Whiteaker, Wilber, Wise, Fernando Wood 77. 



The bill was reported to the Senate on March 

 31st. 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, moved to amend 

 by striking out the proviso relating to special 

 deputy-marshals. The amendment was reject- 

 ed by the following vote : 



YEAS Anthony, Baldwin, Elaine, Booth, Bruce, 

 Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cameron of Wisconsin, 

 Carpenter, Dawes, Ferry, Hamhn, Incralls, Kellogn^ 

 Kirlvwood, Lo^an, McMillan, Merrill, Paddock, Platt, 

 Rollins, Saunders, Windom 22. 



NAYS Bailey, Bayard, Beck, Butler, Call, Cock- 

 rell, Coke, Davis of West Virginia, Farley, Garland, 

 Gordon, Groome, Hampton, Harris, Hereford, Hill of 

 Georgia, Jonas, Jones of Florida, Kernan, Lamar, 

 McDonald, Morgan, Pendleton, Pryor, Randolph, 

 Ransom, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Voorhees, Wal- 

 lace, Whytc, Williams, Withers 34. 



ABSENT Allison, Blair, Burnside, Conkling, Davis 

 of Illinois, Eaton, Edmunds, Grover, Hill of Colorado, 

 Hoar, Johnston, Jones of Nevada, McPherson, Maxey, 

 Plumb, Sharon, Teller, Thurman, Vest, Walker 20. 



The disagreements between the two Houses 

 on other points were settled by a conference 

 committee, and the bill, having passed the Sen- 

 ate, was sent to the President. He returned it 

 to the House with the following message : 



To the House of Representatives : 



After mature consideration of the bill entitled " An 

 act making appropriations to supply certain deficien- 

 cies in the appropriations for the service of the Gov- 

 ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and 

 for other purposes," I return it to the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, in which it originated, with my objections 

 to its passage. 



The bill appropriates about 8,000,000, of which over 

 $GOO,000 is for the payment of fees of United States 

 marshals, and of the general and special deputy-mar- 

 shals, earned during the current fiscal year, and their 

 incidental expenses. The appropriations made in the 

 bill are needed to carry on the operations of the Gov- 

 ernment, and to fulfill its obligations for the payment 

 of money long since due to its officers for services and 

 expenses essential to the execution of their duties under 

 the laws of the United States. The necessity for these 

 appropriations is so urgent, and they have been already 

 so long delayed, that if the bill before me contained no 

 permanent or general legislation unconnected with 

 these appropriations it would receive my prompt ap- 

 proval. It contains, however, provisions which mate- 

 rially change, and, by implication, repeal, important 

 parts of the laws for the regulation of the United States 

 elections. These laws have, for several years past, 

 been the subject of vehement political controversy, ana 

 have been denounced as unnecessary, oppressive, and 

 unconstitutional. On the other hand, it has been main- 



tained, with equal zeal and earnestness, that the elec- 

 tion laws arc indispensable to fair and lawful elections, 

 and are clearly warranted by the Constitution. Under 

 these circumstances to attempt in an appropriation bill 

 the modification or repeal of these laws is to annex a 

 condition to the passage of needed and proper appro- 

 priations which tends to deprive the Executive of that 

 equal and independent exercise of discretion and judg- 

 ment which the Constitution contemplates. 



The objection to the bill, therefore, to which I re- 

 spectfully ask your attention, is that it gives a marked 

 and deliberate sanction, attended by no circumstances 

 of pressing necessity, to the questionable and. as I am 

 clearly of opinion, the dangerous practice of tacking 

 upon appropriation bills general and permanent legis- 

 lation. This practice opens a wide door to liasty, in- 

 considerate, and sinister legislation. It invites attacks 

 upon the independence and constitutional powers of 

 the Executive by providing an easy and effective way 

 of constraining Executive discretion. Although of 

 late this practice has been resorted to by all political 

 parties, when clothed with power, it did not prevail 

 until forty years after the adoption of the Constitu- 

 tion, and it is confidently believed that it is con- 

 demned by the enlightened judgment of the country. 

 The States which have adopted new Constitutions dur- 

 ing the last quarter of a century have generally pro- 

 vided remedies for the evil. Many of them have 

 enacted that no law shall contain more than one sub- 

 ject, which shall be plainly expressed in its title. The 

 Constitutions of more than half of the States contain 

 substantially this provision, or some other of like in- 

 tent and meaning. The public welfare will be pro- 

 moted in many ways by a return to the early practice 

 of the Government, and to the true rule of legislation, 

 which is that every measure should stand upon its 

 own merits. 



I am firmly convinced that appropriation bills ought 

 not to contain any legislation not relevant to the ap- 

 plication or expenditure of the money thereby appro- 

 priated, and that by a strict adherence to this principle 

 an important and much-needed reform will be accom- 

 plished. 



Placing my objection to the bill on this feature of 

 its frame, I forbear any comment upon the important 

 general and permanent legislation which it contains, 

 as matter for specific and independent consideration. 

 RUTHERFORD B. HAYES. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 4, 1880. 



The appropriation bill was finally passed 

 without the clause relating to the special dep- 

 uty-marshals. A separate bill relating to mar- 

 shals subsequently passed both Houses, and 

 was vetoed by the President. The veto was 

 not considered by the House or entered upon 

 the records. 



In the House, on April 10th, the bill making 

 appropriations for the Army was considered. 



Mr/ Sparks: "Mr. Chairman, 1 propose to 

 occupy the time of the committee for only a 

 moment. The question of ' troops at the 

 polls ' occupied the time of this House in the 

 last Congress for many weeks. It, perhaps, 

 precipitated the extra session, in which the 

 subject was discussed for months. The ques- 

 tion originally before the House was this: 

 whether or not a statute allowing the Army 

 to be used by order of its Commander-in-Chief, 

 or those controlling it, at the polls at elections 

 in the States, to control or interfere with those 

 elections, should be wiped out by repeal. A 

 bill unobjectionable, so far as appropriations 

 for the Army were concerned, with this pro- 

 viso added to it, passed the House of Eepro- 



