252 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



ized army the military force and the naval 

 force was authorized to be called out for a like 

 purpose, to protect the States against domestic 

 violence and insurrection. That law also went 

 further, or some subsequent law I have not, 

 from indisposition, been able to look up these 

 laws as I expected to do last night, but the 

 provision of the law for the use of the troops 

 in civil cases is entirely a different matter. It 

 is where provision is made for the execution of 

 a mandate or judgment of a court. The gen- 

 erals are not to command the troops in such 

 cases, but the marshals. The civil officers, as 

 the sheriffs in our States, were authorized to 

 call for the use of the troops, and the President 

 was authorized to furnish them to the Legisla- 

 ture or to the governor when the Legislature 

 was not in session or the marshals for the ex- 

 ecution of the mandate of a court. That is 

 what I call the execution of process in civil 

 administration of the law. That is a very 

 different thing from the other the use of 

 troops to suppress insurrection and domestic 

 violence in a State upon the call of a Legisla- 

 ture or the governor as provided by the Con- 

 stitution. 



" Wherever the marshal calls for troops, as 

 was decided by Attorney- General Gushing, it 

 was as a posse, not as the army. The United 

 States troops were called upon and they were 

 furnished as a posse comitatm to execute the 

 law. They were under the command, not of 

 the United States military officers, but under 

 the command of the marshal who asked for 

 them. 



" Now, Mr. Chairman, upon the subject of 

 the use of the troops to keep the peace at elec- 

 tions I have only to repeat what was so well 

 and so often said yesterday. Such a provision 

 never had existence on the statute-book of the 

 United States until after 1860, after the war. 

 This act of 1865 which it is proposed to modify 

 got into existence rather strangely. The law 

 set out by stating that no officer, etc., should 

 order troops, or have them at any election in 

 any State, except for certain purposes, mainly 

 to keep the peace at the polls. It was a nega- 

 tive affirmative. That is, it thus legalized the 

 use of the army. That is the way in which it 

 appeared upon the statute-book. The danger 

 of such a law, I suppose, in this age and in the 

 enlightened condition of public sentiment the 

 world over, need not be argued. The whole 

 of this amendment is simply this : all the new 

 legislation it proposes, or change of legislation, 

 is to repeal that clause which negatively affirms 

 that the troops might be called out and ordered 

 by military commanders to attend at elections 

 under pretense of keeping the peace. That is 

 all of it. The whole thing might have been 

 embodied simply in the expression that all 

 laws that authorize the use of troops to pre- 

 serve peace at elections should be repealed. 

 That would accomplish the whole object. The 

 use of the other words in the act of 1865 

 amounts to nothing. The whole of that sec- 



tion was to cover that one thing, to preserve 

 the peace at the polls. 



" Now, Mr. Chairman, if there is a man on 

 this floor who is in favor of peaceable elections 

 and order throughout the length and breadth 

 of this country, I profess to be equally strong 

 with him in that wish and desire. Purity of 

 elections is the greatest safeguard of liberty. 

 I am for law and order. I have witnessed the 

 presence of soldiers at the polls. I have seen 

 no good from their presence. We had gotten 

 along for three quarters of a century without it. 

 I think the public sentiment is as much against 

 the use of the troops to preserve the peace 

 North as it is South. That the Government 

 of the United States has got a right to control 

 by law, alter, change, and prescribe the rules 

 and manner of holding the election of members 

 of Congress, I am not going to discuss here. 

 It is not pertinent to this question. But we 

 have got along well for many years without 

 this provision; and I think that the future 

 peace and harmony of the whole country, law, 

 order, and prosperity, will be greatly promoted 

 by hereafter adhering to the principles and 

 practice and methods of the fathers of the Re- 

 public from the beginning down for more than 

 three quarters of a century. Let the relics 

 and vestiges of the war be buried with the 

 things of the past. I do insist that there will 

 be no harm done, no unsettling of our institu- 

 tions, no revolution in our matchless system of 

 government, by the repeal of this law. It 

 seems to me, therefore, this amendment being 

 germane, regulating the use and the control of 

 the army, and being also within the purview 

 of a liberal construction of the rule, it is ad- 

 missible on this bill. 



" Now, as to the use of the army, I wish 

 in connection with some remarks which were 

 offered yesterday on both sides upon this sub- 

 ject to state this : Congress has got a right to 

 raise armies. Congress has got a right to des- 

 ignate the use to which the forces, naval or 

 military, may be applied. But the President's 

 right to control and direct the movements of 

 those forces from one part of the country to 

 the other, enlarging the declared function of 

 Congress, is a clear executive right. We have 

 no power to interfere with it, except by im- 

 peachment for the abuse of power conferred. 

 But we can say that he shall not use the forces 

 for any particular purposes. We have a right 

 to say this and I do not think the present 

 Executive would desire it to be otherwise we 

 have a right to say the forces, land and naval, 

 of the United States shall not be used for the 

 purpose of controlling elections in the States, 

 but that the elections shall be free and fair ac- 

 cording to the laws of the land, State and Fed- 

 eral ; and if any man violates the law, if there 

 has been any violence at the polls, and a mem- 

 ber of Congress has not been duly returned, 

 we are to judge of it here on this floor, and 

 we can set the return aside. Let the land and 

 naval forces of our country be devoted to the 



