and mutual good offices with all the na-
tions of the world.

Fellow - citizens, we have reached the
close of a political contest marked by the
excitement which usually attends the con-
tests between great political parties whose



are made the subject of arbitration under
the forms of law. Human judgment is
never unerring, and is rarely regarded as
otherwise than wrong by the unsuccessful
party in the contest.

The fact that two great political par-
ties have in this way settled a dispute
in regard to which good men differ as to
the facts and the law no less than to the
proper course to be pursued in solving the
question in controversy is an occasion for
general rejoicing.

Upon one point there is entire unan-
imity in public sentiment — that conflict-
ing claims to the Presidency must be
amicably and peaceably adjusted, and that
when so adjusted the general acquiescence
of the nation ought surely to follow.

It has been reserved for a government
of the people, where the right of suffrage
is universal, to give to the world the first
example in history of a great nation, in
the midst of the struggle of opposing par-
ties for power, hushing its party tumults
to yield the issue of the contest to ad-



members espouse and advocate with ear- justment according to the forms of law.



nest faith their respective creeds. The cir-
cumstances were, perhaps, in no respect
extraordinary save in the closeness and
the consequent uncertainty of the result.

For the first time in the history of the
country it has been deemed best, in view
of the peculiar circumstances of the case,



Looking for the guidance of that Divine
Hand by which the destinies of nations
and individuals are shaped, I call upon
you, Senators, Representatives, judges, fel-
low-citizens, here and everywhere, to unite
with me in an earnest effort to secure to
our country the blessings, not only of



335



HAYES, RUTHERFORD BIRCHARD



material prosperity, but of justice, peace,
and union — a union depending not upon
the constraint of force, but upon the lov-
ing devotion of a free people; "and that
all things may be so ordered and settled
upon the best and surest foundations that
peace and happiness, truth and justice,
religion and piety, may be established
among us for all generations."

Military Interference at Elections. — On
May 12, 1879, President Hayes sent the
following veto message to the Congress:



To the House of Representatives, — After
a 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 Representatives 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 en-
deavored to show, by quotations from the
statutes of the United States now in force,
and by a brief statement of facts in re-
gard to recent elections in the several
States, that no additional legislation was
necessary to prevent interference with the
elections by the military or naval forces
of the United States. The fact was pre-
sented 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 or other-
wise, it was maintained by its friends that
it would establish a vital and fundament-
al principle which would secure to the
people protection against a standing army.
The fact was also referred to that, since
the passage of this act, congressional,
State, and municipal elections have been
held throughout the Union, and that in
no instance has complaint been made of
the presence of United States soldiers
at the polls.

Holding, as I do, the opinion that any
military interference whatever at the polls
is contrary to the spirit of our institu-
tions and would tend to destroy the free-
dom of elections, and sincerely desiring
to concur with Congress in all of its meas-



ures, it is with very great regret that I
am forced to the conclusion that the bill
before me is not only unnecessary to pre-
vent such interference, 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 doubt-
ful. No intimidation or coercion should
be allowed to control or influence citizens
in the exercise of their right to vote,
whether it appears in the shape of com-
binations 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 interference, and, as far as prac-
ticable, from all apprehensions 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 or-
ders from me during this administration;
but there should be no denial of the right
of the national government to employ
its military force on any day and at any
place in case such employment is neces-
sary to enforce the Constitution and laws
of the United States.

The bill before me is as follows:

" Be 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, un-
less such force be necessary to repel the
armed enemies of the United States or to
enforce section 4, article iv., of the Con-
stitution of the United States and the
laws made in pursuance thereof, on ap-
plication of the legislature or executive
of the State where such force is to be
used ; and so much of all laws as is incon-
sistent 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 rec-
ognize and concede the sounc 1 ess of the
principle that military force ay proper-
ly and constitutionally be used at the place
of elections when such use is necessary
to enforce the Constitution and the laws;
but the excepted cases leave the prohibi-



HAYES, RUTHERFORD BIRCH ARD



iion so extensive and far-reaching that By this act it will be seen that the scope
its adoption will seriously impair the effi- of the law of 1795 was extended so as
ciency of the executive department of the to authorize the national government to



use not only the militia, but the army and
causing



government.

The first act expressly authorizing the navy of the United States, in
use of military power to execute the laws the laws to be executed."
was passed almost as early as the organ-
ization of the government under the Con-



The important provision of the acts
of 1792, 1795, and 1807, modified in its



stitution, and was approved by President, terms from time to time to adapt it to



Washington, May 2, 1792. It is as fol-
lows :

" Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that



the existing emergency, remained in force
until, by an act approved by President
Lincoln, July 29, 1861, it was re-enacted



whenever the laws of the United States substantially in the same language in
shall be opposed or the execution thereof which it is now found in the Revised
obstructed in any State by combinations Statutes, viz.:



too powerful to be suppressed by the or-



Sec. 5,298. Whenever, by reason of un-



dinary course of judicial proceedings or lawful obstructions, combinations, or as-
hy the powers vested in the marshals by semblages of persons, or rebellion against
this act, the same being notified to the the authority of the government of the
President of the United States by an asso- United States, it shall become impractica-
ciate justice or the district judge, it shall ble, in the judgment of the President, to
be lawful for the President of the United enforce by the ordinary course of judi-
States to call forth the militia of such cial proceedings the laws of the United
State to suppress such combinations and States within any State or Territory, it
to cause the laws to be duly executed, shall be lawful for the President to call
And if the militia of a State where such forth the militia of any or all the States
combination may happen shall refuse or and to employ such parts of the land and
be insufficient to suppress the same, it naval forces of the United States as he
shall be lawful for the President, if the may deem necessary to enforce the faith-
legislature of the United States be not ful execution of the laws of the United
in session, to call forth and employ such States or to suppress such rebellion, in
numbers of the militia of any other State whatever State or Territory thereof the
or States most convenient thereto as may laws of the United States may be forcibly
be necessary; and the use of militia so to opposed or the execution thereof forcibly
be called forth may be continued, if neces- obstructed."

sary, until the expiration of thirty days This ancient and fundamental law has

after the commencement of the ensuing been in force from the foundation of
session/

In 1795 this provision was substantial -



the government. It is now proposed to
abrogate it on certain days and at cer-
Iv re-enacted in a law which repealed the tain places. In my judgment no fact has



ict of 1792. In 1807 the following act be-
came the law, by the approval of Presi-
dent Jefferson:



been produced which tends to show that
it ought to be repealed or suspended for
single hour at any place in any of



" That in all cases of insurrection or the States or Territories of the Union,

obstruction to the laws, either of the All the teachings of experience in the

United States or of any individual State course of our history are in favor of

or Territory, where it is lawful for the sustaining its efficiency unimpaired. On

President of the United States to call every occasion when the supremacy of

forth the militia for the purpose of sup- the Constitution has been resisted and the

pressing such insurrection or of causing perpetuity of our institutions imperilled,

the laws to be duly executed, it shall be the principle of this statute, enacted by

lawful for him to employ for the same pur- the fathers, has enabled the government of

poses such part of the land or naval force the Union to maintain its authority and

of the United States as shall be judged to preserve the integrity of the nation,
necessary, having first observed all the
prerequisites of the law in that respect/



337



At the most critical periods of our
history my predecessors in the executive



HAYES, KUTHERFOBD BIRCHARD



office have relied on this great principle.
It was on this principle that President
Washington suppressed the Whiskey Re-
bellion in Pennsylvania in 1794.

In 1806, on the same principle, Presi-
dent Jefferson broke up the Burr con-
spiracy by issuing " orders for the em-
ployment of such force, either of the
regulars or of the militia, and by such
proceedings of the civil authorities, as
might enable them to suppress effectually
the further progress of the enterprise."
And it was under the same authority
that President Jackson crushed nullifi-
cation in South Carolina, and that Presi-
dent Lincoln issued his call for troops
to save the Union in 1861. On numerous
other occasions of less significance, under
probably every administration, and cer-
tainly under the present, this power has
been successfully exerted to enforce the
laws, without objection by any party in
the country, and almost without attract-
ing public attention.

The great elementary constitutional
principle which was the foundation of
the original statute of 1792, and which
has been its essence in the various forms
it has assumed since its first adoption,
is that the government of the United
States possesses, under the Constitution,
in full measure, the power of self-protec-
tion by its own agencies, altogether in-
dependent of State authority, and, if need
be, against the hostility of State govern-
ments. It should remain embodied in our
statutes unimpaired, as it has been from
the very origin of the government. It
should be regarded as hardly less valu-
able or less sacred than a provision of
the Constitution itself.

There are many other important stat-
utes containing provisions that are liable
to be suspended or annulled at the times
and places of holding elections if the bill
before me should become a law. I do
not undertake to furnish a list of them.
Many of them — perhaps the most of them
— have been set forth in the debates
on this measure. They relate to extra-
dition, to crimes against the election
laws, to quarantine regulations, to neu-
trality, to Indian reservations, to the civil
Tights of citizens, and to other subjects.
In regard to them all it may be safely
said that the meaning and effect of this



bill is to take from the general govern-
ment an important part of its power
to enforce the laws.

Another grave objection to the bill is
its discrimination in favor of the States
and against the national authority. The
presence or employment of the army or
navy of the United States is lawful under
the terms of this bill at the place where an
election is being held in a State to uphold
the authority of a State government then
and there in need of such military inter-
vention, but unlawful to uphold the au-
thority of the government of the United
States then and there in need of such
military intervention. Under this bill the
presence or employment of the army or
navy of the United States would be law-
ful and might be necessary to maintain
the conduct of a State election against
the domestic violence that would over-
throw it, but would be unlawful to main-
tain the conduct of a national election
against the same local violence that would
overthrow it. This discrimination has
never been attempted in any previous
legislation by Congress, and is no more
compatible with sound principles of the
Constitution or the necessary maxims and
methods of our system of government on
occasions of elections than at other times.
In the early legislation of 1792, and of
1795, by which the militia of the States
was the only military power resorted to
for the execution of the constitutional
powers in support of State or national
authority, both functions of the govern-
ment were put upon the same footing.
By the act of 1807 the employment of the
army and navy was authorized for the
performance of both constitutional duties
in the same terms.

In all later statutes on the same sub-
ject-matter the same measure of author-
ity to the government has been accorded
for the performance of both these duties.
No precedent has been found in any pre-
vious legislation, and no sufficient reason
has been given, for the discrimination in
favor of the State and against the national
authority which this bill contains.

Under the sweeping terms of the bill
the national government is effectually
shut out from the exercise of the right
and from the discharge of the imperative
duty to use its whole executive power



338



HAYMARKET MASSACRE— HAYNE



whenever and wherever required for the
enforcement of its laws at the places and
times when and where its elections are
held. The employment of its organized
armed forces for any purpose would be
an offence against the law unless called
for by, and therefore upon permission of,
the authorities of the State in which the
occasion arises. What is this but the sub-
stitution of the discretion of the State
governments for the discretion of the gov-
ernment of the United States as to the
performance of its own duties? In my
judgment this is an abandonment of its
obligations by the national government —
a subordination of national authority and
an intrusion of State supervision over na-
tional duties which amounts, in spirit and
tendency, to State supremacy.

Though I believe that the existing
statutes are abundantly adequate to com-
pletely prevent military interference with
the elections in the sense in which the
phrase is used in the title of this bill
and is employed by the people of this
country, I shall find no difficulty in con-
curring in any additional legislation lim-
ited to that object which does not inter-
fere with the indispensable exercise of
the powers of the government under the
Constitution and laws.

i«.aymarket Massacre. See Anar-
chists.

Hayne, Isaac, patriot; born m Soutn
Carolina, Sept. 23, 1745; was appointed
captain of artillery and State senator in
1780. He was made a prisoner at the



capture of Charleston, and returned to
his home on parole. Early in 1781 he
was ordered to take up arms as a British
subject or go to Charleston a prisoner,
his wife and children then being danger-
ously sick with small-pox. He went to
Charleston, where he was required to bear
arms in support of the royal government
or suffer close confinement. On being as-
sured that if he would sign a declaration
of allegiance to the British crown he would
not be required to bear arms against his
countrymen, he did so. Finally he was
summoned to take up arms against his
people in violation of the agreement. This
dissolved all obligations, and he repaired
to the American camp, received a commis-
sion as colonel, and was soon made a
prisoner. Colonel Balfour, then the Brit-
ish commander in Charleston, hesitated
about disposing of Hayne; but when Lord
Rawdon arrived from Orangeburg, on his
way to England, pursuant to the spirit
of Cornwallis's orders he directed Colonel
Hayne to be hung. This was done without
even the form of a trial, on Aug. 4, 1781.
Hayne, Paul Hamilton, poet; born in
Charleston, S. C, Jan. 1, 1830; graduated
at the College of South Carolina in 1850;
was connected with Russell's Magazine,
Charleston Literary Gazette, Southern
Opinion, and Southern Society. He par-
ticipated in the attack on Fort Sumter,
but was compelled to retire to private life
on account of his health. He was called
the Poet Laureate of the South. He died
near Augusta, Ga., July 6, 1886.



HAYNE, ROBERT YOUNG



Hayne, Robert Young, statesman ; born
near Charleston, S. C, Nov. 10, 1791; was
admitted to the bar in 1812; and when his
law tutor, Langdon Cheves, went to Con-
gress he succeeded to his large practice.
He rose rapidly, and in 1818 was attorney-
general of South Carolina. He was
United States Senator from 1823 to 1832,
and was distinguished as an orator. In
the latter year he and Daniel Webster had
their famous debate on the tariff, during
which Hayne declared the right of a State
to nullify acts of the national government.
In a State convention he drew up the
ordinance of nullification; and when, the



next year, he was governor of South Caro-
lina, he maintained that right, and pre*
pared for armed resistance. Clay's com-
promise allayed the fierce dispute. He
died in Asheville, N. C, Sept. 24, 1839.
See Nullification; Webster, Daniel.

Speech on Foote's Resolution. — On Jan.
21 and 25, 1830, Senator Hayne opened the
great debate with Daniel Webster with the
following speech (for the text of the reso-
lution, see Foote, Samuel Augustus) :



When I took occasion, Mr. President,
two days ago, to throw out some idea^
with respect to the policy of the govern-



HAYNE, ROBERT YOUNG

ment in relation to the public lands, noth- hinted? Has the ghost of the murdered
ing certainly could have been further from coalition come back, like the ghost of
my thoughts than that I should be com- Banquo, to " sear the eyeballs " of the
pelled again to throw myself upon the in- gentleman, and will it not "down at his
dulgence of the Senate. Little did I ex- bidding?" Are dark visions of broken
pect to be called upon to meet such an hopes and honors lost forever still float-
argument as was yesterday urged by the ing before his heated imagination? Sir,
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Web- if it be his object to thrust me between
ster). Sir, I questioned no man's opin- the gentleman from Missouri and himself,
ions, I impeached no man's motives, I in order to rescue the East from the con-
charged no party, or State, or section of test it has provoked with the West, he
country with hostility to any other; but shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be
ventured, I thought in a becoming spirit, dragged into the defence of my friend
to put forth my own sentiments in re- from Missouri. The South shall not be
lation to a great national question of forced into a conflict not its own. The
public policy. Such was my course. The gentleman from Missouri is able to fight
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Benton], his own battles. The gallant West needs
it is true, had charged upon the Eastern no aid from the South to repel any attack
States an early and continued hostility which may be made on them from any
towards the West, and referred to a num- quarter. Let the gentleman from Massa-
ber of historical facts and documents in chusetts controvert the facts and argu-
support of that charge. Now, sir, how ments of the gentleman from Missouri if
have these different arguments been met? he can; and if he win the victory, let
The honorable gentleman from Massachu- him wear its honors; I shall not deprive
setts, after deliberating a whole night him of his laurels.

upon his course, comes into this chamber The gentleman from Massachusetts, in
to vindicate New England; and, instead reply to my remarks on the injurious op-
of making up his issue with the gentle- erations of our land system on the pros-
man from Missouri on the charges which perity of the West, pronounced an extrav-
he had preferred, chooses to consider me agant eulogium on the paternal care which
as the author of these charges, and, losing the government had extended towards the
sight entirely of that gentleman, selects West, to which he attributed all that was
me as his adversary and pours out all great and excellent in the present condi-
the vials of his mighty wrath upon my tion of the new States. The language of
devoted head. Nor is he willing to stop the gentleman on this topic fell upon my
there. He goes on to assail the institu- ears like the almost forgotten tones of the
tions and policy of the South, and calls Tory leaders of the British Parliament at
in question the principles and conduct the commencement of the American Revo-
of the State which I have the honor to lution. They, too, discovered that the
represent. When I find a gentleman of colonies had grown great under the foster-
mature age and experience, of acknowl- ing care of the mother country; and I
edged talents and profound sagacity, pur- must confess, while listening to the gen-
suing a course like this, declining the tleman, I thought the appropriate reply to
contest from the West and making war his argument was to be found in the re-
upon the unoffending South, I must be- mark of a celebrated orator, made on that
lieve, I am bound to believe, he has some occasion: "They have grown great in
object in view that he has not ventured to spite of your protection."
disclose. Mr. President, why is this? The gentleman, in commenting on the
Has the gentleman found in former con- policy of the government in relation to the
troversies with the gentleman from Mis- new States, has introduced to our notice
souri that he is overmatched by that a certain Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts,
Senator? And does he hope for an easy to whom he attributes the celebrated ordi-
victory over a more feeble adversary? nance of '87, by which he tells us " slavery
Has the gentleman's distempered fancy was forever excluded from the new States
been disturbed by gloomy forebodings of north of the Ohio." After eulogizing the
" new alliances to be formed," at which he wisdom of this provision in terms of the

340



HAYNE, ROBERT YOUNG



most extravagant praise, he breaks forth
in admiration of the greatness of Nathan
Dane; and great indeed he must be, if it
be true, as stated by the Senator from
Massachusetts, that " he was greater than
Solon and Lycurgus, Minos, Numa Pom-
pilius, and all the legislators and philoso-
phers of the world," ancient and modern.
Sir, to such high authority it is certainly
my duty, in a becoming spirit of humility,
to submit. And yet the gentleman will