272 



CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



lin, Hill of Georgia, Jones of Nevada, Kirkwood, Mc- 

 Pherson, Paddock, Sharon, Wallace, Whyte, Wil- 

 liams 20. 



So the bill was passed. 



On May 12th, the President sent the follow- 

 ing veto of the bill to the House : 



To the House of Representatives : 



After careful consideration of the bill entitled " An 

 Act to prohibit military interference at elections," I 

 return it to the House of Representatives, in which it 

 originated, with the following objections to its ap- 

 proval : 



In the communication sent to the House of Repre- 

 sentatives on the 29th of last month, returning to the 

 House without my approval the bill entitled " An Act 

 making appropriations for the support of the army for 

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

 purposes," I endeavored to show, by Quotations from 

 the statutes of the United States, now in force, and by 

 a brief statement of facts in regard to recent elections 

 in the several States, that no additional legislation 

 was necessary to prevent interference with the elec- 

 tions by the military or naval forces of the United 

 States. The fact was presented in that communication 

 that at the time of the passage of the act of June 18, 

 1878, in relation to the employment of the army as a 

 posse comitatus cr otherwise, it was maintained by its 

 friends that it would establish a vital and fundamen- 

 tal principle which would secure to the people protec- 

 tion against a standing army. The fact was also re- 

 ferred to that, since the passage of this act, Congres- 

 sional, State, and municipal elections have been neld 

 throughout the Union, and that in no instance has 

 complaint been made of the presence of the United 

 States soldiers at the polls. 



Holding as I do the opinion that any military inter- 

 ference whatever at the polls is contrary to the spirit 

 of our institutions, and would tend to destroy the free- 

 dom of elections, and sincerely desiring to concur with 

 Congress in all of its measures, it is with very great 

 regret that I am forced to the conclusion that the bill 

 before me is not only unnecessary to prevent such in- 

 terference, but is a dangerous departure from long- 

 settled and important constitutional principles. 



The true rule as to the employment of military force 

 at the elections is not doubtful. No intimidation or 

 coercion should be allowed to control or influence citi- 

 zens in the exercise of their right to vote, whether it 

 appears in the shape of combinations of evil-disposed 

 persons, or of armed bodies of the militia of a State, 

 or of the military force of the United States. 



The elections should be free from all forcible inter- 

 ference, and, as far as practicable, from all apprehen- 

 sion of such interference. No soldiers, either of the 

 Union or of the State militia, should be present at the 

 polls to take the place or to perform the duties of the 

 ordinary civil police force. There has been and will 

 be no violation of this rule under orders from me dur- 

 ing this administration. But there should be no de- 

 nial of the right of the National Government to em- 

 ploy its military force on any day and at any place in 

 case such employment is necessary to enforce the Con- 

 stitution and laws of the United States. 



The bill before me is as follows : 



JBe it enacted, etc., That it shall not be lawful to bring to, 

 or employ at, any place where a general or special election is 

 being held in a State, any part of the army or navy of the 

 United States, unless such force be necessary to repel the 

 armed enemies of the United States, or to enforce section 4, 

 article 4, of the Constitution of the United States, and the 

 laws made in pursuance thereof, on application of the Legisla- 

 ture or executive of the State where such force is to be used ; 

 and so much of all laws as is inconsistent herewith is hereby 

 repealed. 



It will be observed that the bill exempts from the 

 general prohibition against the employment of military 

 force at the polls two specified cases. These exceptions 

 recognize and concede the soundness of the principle 



that military force may properly and constitutionally 

 be used at the place or elections, when such use is 

 necessary to enforce the Constitution and the laws. 

 But the excepted cases leave the prohibition so exten- 

 sive and far-reaching that its adoption will seriously 

 impair the efficiency of the executive department of 

 the Government. 



The first act expressly authorizing the use of mili- 

 tary power to execute the laws was passed almost as 

 early as the organization of the Government under 

 the Constitution, and was approved by President 

 Washington May 2, 1792. It is as follows : 



SKO. 2. And 'be it further enacted, That whenever the 

 laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution 

 thereof obstructed, in any State, by combinations too power- 

 ful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial pro- 

 ceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this 

 act, the same being notified to the President of the United 

 States by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be 

 lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the 

 militia of such State to suppress such combinations, and to 

 cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a 

 State where such combination may happen shall refuse or be 

 insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the 

 President, if the Legislature of the United States be not in 

 session, to call forth and employ euch numbers of the militia 

 of any other State or States most convenient thereto as may 

 be necessary ; and the use of militia, so to be called forth, 

 may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty 

 days after the commencement of the ensuing session. 



In 1795 this provision was substantially reenacted 

 in a law which repealed the act of 1792. In 1807 the 

 following act became the law by the approval of Presi- 

 dent Jenerson : 



That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, 

 either of the United States or of any individual State or Ter- 

 ritory, where it is lawful for the President of the United 

 States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing 

 such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, 

 it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, 

 euch part of the land or naval force of the United States as 

 shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the prere- 

 quisites of the law in that respect. 



By this act it will be seen that the scope of the law 

 of 1795 was extended so as to authorize the National 

 Government to use not only the militia but the army 

 and navy of the United States in " causing the laws 

 to be duly executed." 



The important provision of the acts of 1792, 1795, 

 and 1807, modified in its terms from time to time to 

 adapt it to the existing emergency, remained in force 

 until by an act approved by President Lincoln, July 

 29, 1861, it was reenacted substantially in the same 

 language in which it is now found in the Revised 

 Statutes, viz. : 



SEC. 5298. Whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, 

 combinations, or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against 

 the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall 

 become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to 

 enforce, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the 

 laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it 

 shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of any or 

 all the States, and to employ such parts of the land and naval 

 forces of the United States as he may deem necessary to en- 

 force the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, 

 or to suppress such rebellion, in whatever State or Territory 

 thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, 

 or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed. 



This ancient and fundamental law has been in force 

 from the foundation of the Government. It is now 

 proposed to abrogate it on certain days and at certain 

 places. In my judgment no fact has been produced 

 which tends to show that it ought to be repealed or 

 suspended for a single hour at any place in any of the 

 States or Territories of the Union. All the teachings 

 of experience in the course of our history are in favor 

 of sustaining its efficiency unimpaired. On every oc- 

 casion when the supremacy of the Constitution has 

 been resisted, and the perpetuity of our institutions 

 imperiled, the principle of this statute, enacted by the 

 fathers, has enabled the Government of the Union to 

 maintain its authority and to preserve the integrity of 

 the nation. 



