J70 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



the American citizen impresses for himself, 

 and not through any representative, his will 

 upon American policy and government. There 

 and then he casts his vote. 



" If the laws of the country are to be exe- 

 cuted, ant] for that purpose its peace preserved 

 at all, will you make an exception of election- 

 day ? Does the Democratic party of this coun- 

 try choose by its action to say, ' We will re- 

 luctantly execute the laws ; we will, for very 

 shame, maintain peace; we will sustain the 

 Government on every day except on election- 

 day, but upon that occasion, when the freemen 

 of the country desire freely to execute their 

 will, and without let or hindrance to impress 

 their power upon the Government of the coun- 

 try, we can not afford to keep the peace of the 

 United States?' 



Mr. Keifer, of Ohio: "Mr, Chairman, this 

 proposed amendment would, in my opinion, 

 if literally carried out, have the effect to annul 

 the appropriation for the Army to the extent 

 that no part of it could be used to keep the 

 peace at the polls. To uss troops in aid of the 

 civil power, ail authorities concur in holding, 

 is to use them as a police force. While troops 

 of the United States are being so used, they 

 may possibly be said to be used as an army, 

 but they are none the less used as a police 

 force. The very language, Mr. Chairman, of 

 the proposed amendment indicates that the 

 soldiers are not to be transformed into police- 

 men, but that they are simply prohibited from 

 being used as a police force in keeping the peace. 



" One of the early struggles in the history 

 of this Government was during the administra- 

 tion of President Washington, about the right 

 to maintain a navy; and also as to how that 

 navy was to be used. Alexander Hamilton, 

 who was the leader of the Federalists, main- 

 tained that it was the right and the duty of the 

 Government to establish a strong navy ; and, to 

 use his own language, he said that ' it ought to 

 be established and maintained to be used on the 

 high seas as a police force to protect our flag and 

 our commerce.' He did not mean by that, that 

 the seamen were to be turned into policemen, 

 but that our ships, properly manned, should pa- 

 trol the seas 'as a police force,' and there main- 

 tain the majesty of our Government, etc. That 

 great controversy, which lasted for years, be- 

 tween Alexander Hamilton and the great Sec- 

 retary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, the lead- 

 er of the then Republican party, resulted in the 

 question being settled (and since maintained) 

 in favor of the United States having a navy to 

 be used on the high seas as a police force. In 

 this amendment is found the precise language 

 used in that controversy; it speaks of using the 

 Army of the United States as a police force to 

 keep the peace at the polls. But I will not 

 dwell further on that point. 



"Let us analyze this amendment. I may 

 say, Mr. Chairman, that it is exactly the sixth 

 section of the Army appropriation bill which 

 was passed at the extra session of this Congress, 



against which my friend here [Mr. Williams, of 

 Wisconsin] and a few others with myself voted. 

 A fair construction of this proposition drives 

 us to the conclusion that it inhibits the use of 

 the Army at the polls to keep the peace and 

 quell election riots, and that it is purposely got- 

 ten up to prevent a quiet and an honest elec- 

 tion. By the very terms of the amendment the 

 President of the United States, if he feels bound 

 by it if enacted into a law, and I think it is our 

 duty to oppose it as though it were binding on 

 him, although it might be regarded by him as 

 a nullity, would not have for the ensuing fiscal 

 year the right to use the Army in the discharge 

 of his constitutional duty in enforcing all the 

 laws. I maintain, if we enact this amendment 

 into law, it will have the moral force at least of 

 saying that the Army of the United States shall 

 not be used to put down riots on election-day. 



" I hope the House will pardon me, while I 

 read an extract from the syllabi in the case of 

 Ex parte Seibold et al. 



" I read : 



" The national Government has the right to use 

 physical force in any part of the United States to com- 

 pel obedience to its laws and to carry into execution 

 the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. 



"The concurrent jurisdiction of the national Gov- 

 ernment, with that of the States, which it has in the 

 exercise of its powers of sovereignty in every part of 

 the United States, is distinct from that exclusive juris- 

 diction which it has by the Constitution in the District 

 of Columbia, and in those places acquired for the erec- 

 tion efforts, magazines, arsenals, etc. 



" The provisions adopted for compelling the State 

 officers of election to observe the State laws regulating 

 elections of Representatives, not altered by Congress, 

 are within the supervisory powers of Congress over 

 such elections. The duties to be performed in this 

 behalf are owed to the United States as well as to the 

 State; and their violation is an offense against the 

 United States which Congress may rightfully inhibit 

 and punish. This necessarily follows from the direct 

 interest which the national Government has in the 

 due election of its Representatives and from the power 

 which the Constitution gives to Congress over this 

 particular subject. 



" The right to use physical force in any part 

 of the United States to compel obedience to the 

 laws is thus authoritatively settled. This right 

 must now be regarded as the fixed law of the 

 land. 



"From the exhaustive opinion of Justice 

 Bradley, who spoke for the court, I read further: 



" The more general reason assigned, to wit, that the 

 nature of sovereignty is such as to preclude the joint 

 cooperation of two sovereigns, even in a matter in 

 which they arc mutually concerned, is not, in our 

 iudgment, of sufficient force to prevent concurrent and 

 harmonious action on the part of the national and State 

 governments in the election of Representatives. ^ It is 

 at most an argument ab inconveniente. There is no- 

 thing in the Constitution to forbid such cooperation in 

 this case. On the contrary, as already saia, we think 

 it clear that the clause of the Constitution relating to 

 the regulation of such elections contemplates such co- 

 operation whenever Congress deems it expedient to 

 interfere merely to alter or add to existing regulations 

 of the State. If the two governments had an entire 

 equality of jurisdiction, there might be an intrinsic 

 difficulty in such cooperation. Then the adoption by 

 the State government of a system of regulations might 





