interfering with the supervisors of elections and deputy marshals in
the discharge of their duties at the elections of Representatives in
Congress.
These are some of the laws on this subject which it is the duty of
the executive department of the Government to enforce. The intent and
effect of the sixth section of this bill is to prohibit all the civil
officers of the United States, under penalty of fine and imprisonment,
from employing any adequate civil force for this purpose at the place
where their enforcement is most necessary, namely, at the places
where the Congressional elections are held. Among the most valuable
enactments to which I have referred are those which protect the
supervisors of Federal elections in the discharge of their duties at
the polls. If the proposed legislation should become the law, there
will be no power vested in any officer of the Government to protect
from violence the officers of the United States engaged in the
discharge of their duties. Their rights and duties under the law will
remain, but the National Government will be powerless to enforce its
own statutes. The States may employ both military and civil power to
keep the peace and to enforce the laws at State elections. It is
now proposed to deny to the United States even the necessary civil
authority to protect the national elections. No sufficient reason has
been given for this discrimination in favor of the State and against
the national authority. If well-founded objections exist against the
present national election laws, all good citizens should unite in
their amendment. The laws providing the safeguards of the elections
should be impartial, just, and efficient. They should, if possible,
be so nonpartisan and fair in their operation that the minority--the
party out of power--will have no just grounds to complain. The present
laws have in practice unquestionably conduced to the prevention of
fraud and violence at the elections. In several of the States members
of different political parties have applied for the safeguards which
they furnish. It is the right and duty of the National Government to
enact and enforce laws which will secure free and fair Congressional
elections. The laws now in force should not be repealed except in
connection with the enactment of measures which will better accomplish
that important end. Believing that section 6 of the bill before me
will weaken, if it does not altogether take away, the power of the
National Government to protect the Federal elections by the civil
authorities, I am forced to the conclusion that it ought not to
receive my approval.
This section is, however, not presented to me as a separate and
independent measure, but is, as has been stated, attached to the bill
making the usual annual appropriations for the support of the Army. It
makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in
no way connected with the use of the Army. It prohibits, under heavy
penalties, any person engaged in the civil service of the United
States from having any force at the place of any election, prepared to
preserve order, to make arrests, to keep the peace, or in any manner
to enforce the laws. This is altogether foreign to the purpose of
an Army appropriation bill. The practice of tacking to appropriation
bills measures not pertinent to such bills did not prevail until more
than forty years after the adoption of the Constitution. It has become
a common practice. All parties when in power have adopted it. Many
abuses and great waste of public money have in this way crept into
appropriation bills. The public opinion of the country is against it.
The States which have recently adopted constitutions have generally
provided a remedy for the evil by enacting that no law shall contain
more than one subject, which shall be plainly expressed in its
title. The constitutions of more than half of the States contain
substantially this provision. The public welfare will be promoted in
many ways by a return to the early practice of the Government and to
the true principle of legislation, which requires that every measure
shall stand or fall according to its own merits. If it were understood
that to attach to an appropriation bill a measure irrelevant to the
general object of the bill would imperil and probably prevent its
final passage and approval, a valuable reform in the parliamentary
practice of Congress would be accomplished. The best justification
that has been offered for attaching irrelevant riders to appropriation
bills is that it is done for convenience sake, to facilitate the
passage of measures which are deemed expedient by all the branches
of Government which participate in legislation. It can not be claimed
that there is any such reason for attaching this amendment of the
election laws to the Army appropriation bill. The history of the
measure contradicts this assumption. A majority of the House of
Representatives in the last Congress was in favor of section 6 of this
bill. It was known that a majority of the Senate was opposed to
it, and that as a separate measure it could not be adopted. It was
attached to the Army appropriation bill to compel the Senate to
assent to it. It was plainly announced to the Senate that the Army
appropriation bill would not be allowed to pass unless the proposed
amendments of the election laws were adopted with it. The Senate
refused to assent to the bill on account of this irrelevant section.
Congress thereupon adjourned without passing an appropriation bill for
the Army, and the present extra session of the Forty-sixth Congress
became necessary to furnish the means to carry on the Government.
The ground upon which the action of the House of Representatives is
defended has been distinctly stated by many of its advocates. A week
before the close of the last session of Congress the doctrine in
question was stated by one of its ablest defenders as follows:
It is our duty to repeal these laws. It is not worth while
to attempt the repeal except upon an appropriation bill.
The Republican Senate would not agree to nor the Republican
President sign a bill for such repeal. Whatever objection to
legislation upon appropriation bills may be made in ordinary
cases does not apply where free elections and the liberty of
the citizens are concerned. * * * We have the power to vote
money; let us annex conditions to it, and insist upon the
redress of grievances.
By another distinguished member of the House it was said:
The right of the Representatives of the people to withhold
supplies is as old as English liberty. History records
numerous instances where the Commons, feeling that the people
were oppressed by laws that the Lords would not consent
to repeal by the ordinary methods of legislation, obtained
redress at last by refusing appropriations unless accompanied
by relief measures.
That a question of the gravest magnitude, and new in this country, was
raised by this course of proceeding, was fully recognized also by its
defenders in the Senate. It was said by a distinguished Senator:
Perhaps no greater question, in the form we are brought to
consider it, was ever considered by the American Congress
in time of peace; for it involves not merely the merits or
demerits of the laws which the House bill proposes to repeal,
but involves the rights, the privileges, the powers, the
duties of the two branches of Congress and of the President
of the United States. It is a vast question; it is a question
whose importance can scarcely be estimated; it is a question
that never yet has been brought so sharply before the American
Congress and the American people as it may be now. It is
a question which sooner or later must be decided, and the
decision must determine what are the powers of the House of
Representatives under the Constitution, and what is the duty
of that House in the view of the framers of that Constitution,
according to its letter and its spirit.
Mr. President, I should approach this question, if I were in
the best possible condition to speak and to argue it, with
very grave diffidence, and certainly with the utmost anxiety;
for no one can think of it as long and as carefully as I have
thought of it without seeing that we are at the beginning,
perhaps, of a struggle that may last as long in this country
as a similar struggle lasted in what we are accustomed to call
the mother land. There the struggle lasted for two centuries
before it was ultimately decided. It is not likely to last so
long here, but it may last until every man in this chamber is
in his grave. It is the question whether or no the House of
Representatives has a right to say, "We will grant supplies
only upon condition that grievances are redressed. We are
the representatives of the taxpayers of the Republic. We, the
House of Representatives, alone have the right to originate
money bills. We, the House of Representatives, have alone the
right to originate bills which grant the money of the people.
The Senate represents States; we represent the taxpayers
of the Republic. We, therefore, by the very terms of the
Constitution, are charged with the duty of originating the
bills which grant the money of the people. We claim the right,
which the House of Commons in England established after two
centuries of contest, to say that we will not grant the money
of the people unless there is a redress of grievances."
Upon the assembling of this Congress, in pursuance of a call for
an extra session, which was made necessary by the failure of the
Forty-fifth Congress to make the needful appropriations for the
support of the Government, the question was presented whether the
attempt made in the last Congress to ingraft by construction a new
principle upon the Constitution should be persisted in or not. This
Congress has ample opportunity and time to pass the appropriation
bills, and also to enact any political measures which may be
determined upon in separate bills by the usual and orderly methods
of proceeding. But the majority of both Houses have deemed it wise to
adhere to the principles asserted and maintained in the last Congress
by the majority of the House of Representatives. That principle is
that the House of Representatives has the sole right to originate
bills for raising revenue, and therefore has the right to withhold
appropriations upon which the existence of the Government may depend
unless the Senate and the President shall give their assent to any
legislation which the House may see fit to attach to appropriation
bills. To establish this principle is to make a radical, dangerous,
and unconstitutional change in the character of our institutions. The
various departments of the Government and the Army and the Navy
are established by the Constitution or by laws passed in pursuance
thereof. Their duties are clearly defined and their support is
carefully provided for by law. The money required for this purpose has
been collected from the people and is now in the Treasury, ready to
be paid out as soon as the appropriation bills are passed. Whether
appropriations are made or not, the collection of the taxes will go
on. The public money will accumulate in the Treasury. It was not the
intention of the framers of the Constitution that any single branch of
the Government should have the power to dictate conditions upon
which this treasure should be applied to the purpose for which it was
collected. Any such intention, if it had been entertained, would have
been plainly expressed in the Constitution.
That a majority of the Senate now concurs in the claim of the House
adds to the gravity of the situation, but does not alter the
question at issue. The new doctrine, if maintained, will result in
a consolidation of unchecked and despotic power in the House of
Representatives. A bare majority of the House will become the
Government. The Executive will no longer be what the framers of
the Constitution intended--an equal and independent branch of the
Government. It is clearly the constitutional duty of the President to
exercise his discretion and judgment upon all bills presented to him
without constraint or duress from any other branch of the Government.
To say that a majority of either or both of the Houses of Congress may
insist upon the approval of a bill under the penalty of stopping all
of the operations of the Government for want of the necessary supplies
is to deny to the Executive that share of the legislative power which
is plainly conferred by the second section of the seventh article
of the Constitution. It strikes from the Constitution the qualified
negative of the President. It is said that this should be done
because it is the peculiar function of the House of Representatives to
represent the will of the people. But no single branch or department
of the Government has exclusive authority to speak for the American
people. The most authentic and solemn expression of their will
is contained in the Constitution of the United States. By that
Constitution they have ordained and established a Government whose
powers are distributed among coordinate branches, which, as far as
possible consistently with a harmonious cooperation, are absolutely
independent of each other. The people of this country are unwilling to
see the supremacy of the Constitution replaced by the omnipotence of
any one department of the Government.
The enactment of this bill into a law will establish a precedent which
will tend to destroy the equal independence of the several branches
of the Government. Its principle places not merely the Senate and the
Executive, but the judiciary also, under the coercive dictation of
the House. The House alone will be the judge of what constitutes a
grievance, and also of the means and measure of redress. An act of
Congress to protect elections is now the grievance complained of; but
the House may on the same principle determine that any other act of
Congress, a treaty made by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate, a nomination or appointment to office, or that a
decision or opinion of the Supreme Court is a grievance, and that the
measure of redress is to withhold the appropriations required for the
support of the offending branch of the Government.
Believing that this bill is a dangerous violation of the spirit and
meaning of the Constitution, I am compelled to return it to the House
in which it originated without my approval. The qualified negative
with which the Constitution invests the President is a trust that
involves a duty which he can not decline to perform. With a firm and
conscientious purpose to do what I can to preserve unimpaired the
constitutional powers and equal independence, not merely of the
Executive, but of every branch of the Government, which will be
imperiled by the adoption of the principle of this bill, I desire
earnestly to urge upon the House of Representatives a return to the
wise and wholesome usage of the earlier days of the Republic, which
excluded from appropriation bills all irrelevant legislation. By
this course you will inaugurate an important reform in the method of
Congressional legislation; your action will be in harmony with the
fundamental principles of the Constitution and the patriotic sentiment
of nationality which is their firm support, and you will restore to
the country that feeling of confidence and security and the
repose which are so essential to the prosperity of all of our
fellow-citizens.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
_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 approval:
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 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 elections 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_ or otherwise, it was maintained by its friends that it
would establish a vital and fundamental 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 institutions and would
tend to destroy the freedom 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 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 doubtful. 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 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 interference, and, as
far as practicable, 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 orders 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 necessary 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, unless such force be necessary to repel the
armed enemies of the United States or to enforce section 4,
Article IV, of the Constitution of the United States and
the laws made in pursuance thereof, on application of the
legislature 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 of elections when such use is necessary to enforce
the Constitution and the laws; but the excepted cases leave the
prohibition so extensive 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 military 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:
SEC. 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 powerful to be
suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings 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 such 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 President Jefferson:
That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws,
either of the United States or of any individual State or
Territory, 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 such part of the land or naval force of the
United States as shall be judged necessary, having first
observed all the prerequisites 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 enforce 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 occasion 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.
At the most critical periods of our history my predecessors in the
executive office have relied on this great principle. It was on this
principle that President Washington suppressed the whisky rebellion in
Pennsylvania in 1794.
In 1806, on the same principle, President Jefferson broke up the Burr
conspiracy by issuing "orders for the employment 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 nullification in South
Carolina and that President Lincoln issued his call for troops to save
the Union in 1861. On numerous other occasions of less significance,
under probably every Administration, and certainly under the present,
this power has been usefully exerted to enforce the laws, without
objection by any party in the country, and almost without attracting
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-protection by its own agencies,
altogether independent of State authority, and, if need be, against
the hostility of State governments. 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 valuable or less
sacred than a provision of the Constitution itself.
There are many other important statutes 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 extradition, to crimes against the election laws, to quarantine
regulations, to neutrality, to Indian reservations, to the civil
rights 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 Government an important part of its power to enforce
the laws.
Another grave objection to the bill is its discrimination in favor
of the State 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 intervention, but unlawful to uphold the
authority 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 lawful
and might be necessary to maintain the conduct of a State election
against the domestic violence that would overthrow it, but would be
unlawful to maintain 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
Government 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 subject-matter the same measure of
authority to the Government has been accorded for the performance
of both these duties. No precedent has been found in any previous
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
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 such purpose would be an offense
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 substitution of the discretion of the State governments
for the discretion of the Government 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 national
duties which amounts, in spirit and tendency, to State supremacy.
Though I believe that the existing statutes are abundantly adequate
to completely 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
concurring in any additional legislation limited to that object which
does not interfere with the indispensable exercise of the powers of
the Government under the Constitution and laws.
R.B. HAYES.
MAY 12, 1879.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1879_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
After mature consideration of the bill entitled "An act making
appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses
of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, and for
other purposes," I herewith return it to the House of Representatives,
in which it originated, with the following objections to its approval:
The main purpose of the bill is to appropriate the money required to
support during the next fiscal year the several civil departments
of the Government. The amount appropriated exceeds in the aggregate
$18,000,000.
This money is needed to keep in operation the essential functions of
all the great departments of the Government--legislative, executive,
and judicial. If the bill contained no other provisions, no objection
to its approval would be made. It embraces, however, a number of
clauses, relating to subjects of great general interest, which are
wholly unconnected with the appropriations which it provides for.
The objections to the practice of tacking general legislation to
appropriation bills, especially when the object is to deprive a
coordinate branch of the Government of its right to the free exercise
of its own discretion and judgment touching such general legislation,
were set forth in the special message in relation to House bill No. 1,
which was returned to the House of Representatives on the 29th of last
month. I regret that the objections which were then expressed to this
method of legislation have not seemed to Congress of sufficient weight
to dissuade from this renewed incorporation of general enactments in
an appropriation bill, and that my constitutional duty in respect of
the general legislation thus placed before me can not be
discharged without seeming to delay, however briefly, the necessary
appropriations by Congress for the support of the Government. Without
repeating these objections, I respectfully refer to that message for
a statement of my views on the principle maintained in debate by the
advocates of this bill, viz, that "to withhold appropriations is a
constitutional means for the redress" of what the majority of the
House of Representatives may regard as "a grievance."
The bill contains the following clauses, viz:
_And provided further_, That the following sections of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, namely, sections 2016,
2018, and 2020, and all of the succeeding sections of said
statutes down to and including section 2027, and also section
5522, be, and the same are hereby, repealed; * * * and that
all the other sections of the Revised Statutes, and all
laws and parts of laws authorizing the appointment of
chief supervisors of elections, special deputy marshals of
elections, or general deputy marshals having any duties to
perform in respect to any election, and prescribing their
duties and powers and allowing them compensation, be, and the
same are hereby, repealed.
It also contains clauses amending sections 2017, 2019, 2028, and 2031
of the Revised Statutes.
The sections of the Revised Statutes which the bill, if approved,
would repeal or amend are part of an act approved May 30, 1870, and
amended February 28, 1871, entitled "An act to enforce the rights of
citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of
this Union, and for other purposes." All of the provisions of the
above-named acts which it is proposed in this bill to repeal or modify
relate to the Congressional elections. The remaining portion of the
law, which will continue in force after the enactment of this measure,
is that which provides for the appointment, by a judge of the circuit
court of the United States, of two supervisors of election in each
election district at any Congressional election, on due application
of citizens who desire, in the language of the law, "to have such
election _guarded_ and _scrutinized_." The duties of the supervisors
will be to attend at the polls at all Congressional elections, and
to remain after the polls are open until every vote cast has been
counted; but they will "have no authority to make arrests or to
perform other duties than to be in the immediate presence of the
officers holding the election and to witness all their proceedings,
including the counting of the votes and the making of a return
thereof." The part of the election law which will be repealed by the
approval of this bill includes those sections which give authority
to the supervisors of elections "to personally scrutinize, count, and
canvass each ballot," and all the sections which confer authority upon
the United States marshals and deputy marshals in connection with the
Congressional elections. The enactment of this bill will also repeal
section 5522 of the criminal statutes of the United States, which was
enacted for the protection of United States officers engaged in the
discharge of their duties at the Congressional elections. This section
protects supervisors and marshals in the performance of their duties
by making the obstruction or the assaulting of these officers, or
any interference with them, by bribery or solicitation or otherwise,
crimes against the United States.
The true meaning and effect of the proposed legislation are plain. The
supervisors, with the authority to observe and witness the proceedings
at the Congressional elections, will be left, but there will be no
power to protect them, or to prevent interference with their duties,
or to punish any violation of the law from which their powers are
derived. If this bill is approved, only the shadow of the authority of
the United States at the national elections will remain; the substance
will be gone. The supervision of the elections will be reduced to a
mere inspection, without authority on the part of the supervisors to
do any act whatever to make the election a fair one. All that will be
left to the supervisors is the permission to have such oversight of
the elections as political parties are in the habit of exercising
without any authority of law, in order to prevent their opponents from
obtaining unfair advantages. The object of the bill is to destroy
any control whatever by the United States over the Congressional
elections.
The passage of this bill has been urged upon the ground that the
election of members of Congress is a matter which concerns the States
alone; that these elections should be controlled exclusively by
the States; that there are and can be no such elections as national
elections, and that the existing law of the United States regulating
the Congressional elections is without warrant in the Constitution.
It is evident, however, that the framers of the Constitution regarded
the election of members of Congress in every State and in every
district as in a very important sense justly a matter of political
interest and concern to the whole country. The original provision of
the Constitution on this subject is as follows (sec. 4, Art. I):
The times, places, and manner of holding elections for
Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State
by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time,
by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the
places of choosing Senators.
A further provision has been since added, which is embraced in the
fifteenth amendment. It is as follows:
SEC. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
Under the general provision of the Constitution (sec. 4, Art. I)
Congress in 1866 passed a comprehensive law which prescribed full and
detailed regulations for the election of Senators by the legislatures
of the several States. This law has been in force almost thirteen
years. In pursuance of it all the members of the present Senate of the
United States hold their seats. Its constitutionality is not called
in question. It is confidently believed that no sound argument can
be made in support of the constitutionality of national regulation of
Senatorial elections which will not show that the elections of members
of the House of Representatives may also be constitutionally regulated
by the national authority.
The bill before me itself recognizes the principle that the
Congressional elections are not State elections, but national
elections. It leaves in full force the existing statute under which
supervisors are still to be appointed by national authority to
"observe and witness" the Congressional elections whenever due
application is made by citizens who desire said elections to be
"guarded and scrutinized." If the power to supervise in any respect
whatever the Congressional elections exists under section 4, Article
I, of the Constitution, it is a power which, like every other power
belonging to the Government of the United States, is paramount and
supreme, and includes the right to employ the necessary means to carry
it into effect.
The statutes of the United States which regulate the election of
members of the House of Representatives, an essential part of which
it is proposed to repeal by this bill, have been in force about eight
years. Four Congressional elections have been held under them, two of
which were at the Presidential elections of 1872 and 1876. Numerous
prosecutions, trials, and convictions have been had in the courts of
the United States in all parts of the Union for violations of these
laws. In no reported case has their constitutionality been called in
question by any judge of the courts of the United States. The validity
of these laws is sustained by the uniform course of judicial action
and opinion.
If it is urged that the United States election laws are not necessary,
an ample reply is furnished by the history of their origin and of
their results. They were especially prompted by the investigation and
exposure of the frauds committed in the city and State of New York
at the elections of 1868. Committees representing both of the leading
political parties of the country have submitted reports to the House
of Representatives on the extent of those frauds. A committee of the
Fortieth Congress, after a full investigation, reached the conclusion
that the number of fraudulent votes cast in the city of New York alone
in 1868 was not less than 25,000. A committee of the Forty-fourth
Congress in their report, submitted in 1877, adopted the opinion that
for every 100 actual voters of the city of New York in 1868 108 votes
were cast, when in fact the number of lawful votes cast could not
have exceeded 88 per cent of the actual voters of the city. By this
statement the number of fraudulent votes at that election in the city
of New York alone was between thirty and forty thousand. These frauds
completely reversed the result of the election in the State of New
York, both as to the choice of governor and State officers and as to
the choice of electors of President and Vice-President of the United
States. They attracted the attention of the whole country. It was
plain that if they could be continued and repeated with impunity free
government was impossible. A distinguished Senator, in opposing the
passage of the election laws, declared that he had "for a long time
believed that our form of government was a comparative failure in the
larger cities." To meet these evils and to prevent these crimes the
United States laws regulating Congressional elections were enacted.
The framers of these laws have not been disappointed in their results.
In the large cities, under their provisions, the elections have been
comparatively peaceable, orderly, and honest. Even the opponents of
these laws have borne testimony to their value and efficiency and to
the necessity for their enactment. The committee of the Forty-fourth
Congress, composed of members a majority of whom were opposed to these
laws, in their report on the New York election of 1876, said:
The committee would commend to other portions of the country
and to other cities this remarkable system, developed through
the agency of both local and Federal authorities acting in
harmony for an honest purpose. In no portion of the world and
in no era of time where there has been an expression of the
popular will through the forms of law has there been a more
complete and thorough illustration of republican institutions.
Whatever may have been the previous habit or conduct of
elections in those cities, or howsoever they may conduct
themselves in the future, this election of 1876 will stand as
a monument of what good faith, honest endeavor, legal forms,
and just authority may do for the protection of the electoral
franchise.
This bill recognizes the authority and duty of the United States
to appoint supervisors to guard and scrutinize the Congressional
elections, but it denies to the Government of the United States all
power to make its supervision effectual. The great body of the people
of all parties want free and fair elections. They do not think that
a free election means freedom from the wholesome restraints of law or
that the place of election should be a sanctuary for lawlessness
and crime. On the day of an election peace and good order are more
necessary than on any other day of the year. On that day the humblest
and feeblest citizens, the aged and the infirm, should be, and should
have reason to feel that they are, safe in the exercise of their
most responsible duty and their most sacred right as members of
society--their duty and their right to vote. The constitutional
authority to regulate the Congressional elections which belongs to the
Government of the United States, and which it is necessary to exert
to secure the right to vote to every citizen possessing the requisite
qualifications, ought to be enforced by appropriate legislation.
So far from public opinion in any part of the country favoring any
relaxation of the authority of the Government in the protection of
elections from violence and corruption, I believe it demands greater
vigor both in the enactment and in the execution of the laws framed
for that purpose. Any oppression, any partisan partiality, which
experience may have shown in the working of existing laws may well
engage the careful attention both of Congress and of the Executive,
in their respective spheres of duty, for the correction of these
mischiefs. As no Congressional elections occur until after the regular
session of Congress will have been held, there seems to be no public
exigency that would preclude a seasonable consideration at that
session of any administrative details that might improve the present
methods designed for the protection of all citizens in the complete
and equal exercise of the right and power of the suffrage at such
elections. But with my views, both of the constitutionality and of the
value of the existing laws, I can not approve any measure for their
repeal except in connection with the enactment of other legislation
which may reasonably be expected to afford wiser and more efficient
safeguards for free and honest Congressional elections.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1879_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
After careful examination of the bill entitled "An act making
appropriations for certain judicial expenses," I return it herewith
to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the
following objections to its approval:
The general purpose of the bill is to provide for certain judicial
expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880,
for which the sum of $2,690,000 is appropriated. These appropriations
are required to keep in operation the general functions of the
judicial department of the Government, and if this part of the bill
stood alone there would be no objection to its approval. It contains,
however, other provisions, to which I desire respectfully to ask your
attention.
At the present session of Congress a majority of both Houses, favoring
a repeal of the Congressional election laws embraced in title 26 of
the Revised Statutes, passed a measure for that purpose, as part of
a bill entitled "An act making appropriations for the legislative,
executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1880, and for other purposes." Unable to concur with
Congress in that measure, on the 29th of May last I returned the bill
to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, without my
approval, for that further consideration for which the Constitution
provides. On reconsideration the bill was approved by less than
two-thirds of the House, and failed to become a law. The election laws
therefore remain valid enactments, and the supreme law of the land,
binding not only upon all private citizens, but also alike and equally
binding upon all who are charged with the duties and responsibilities
of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments of the
Government.
It is not sought by the bill before me to repeal the election laws.
Its object is to defeat their enforcement. The last clause of the
first section is as follows:
And no part of the money hereby appropriated is appropriated
to pay any salaries, compensation, fees, or expenses under
or in virtue of title 26 of the Revised Statutes, or of any
provision of said title.
Title 26 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in the foregoing clause,
relates to the elective franchise, and contains the laws now in force
regulating the Congressional elections.
The second section of the bill reaches much further. It is as follows:
SEC. 2. That the sums appropriated in this act for the persons
and public service embraced in its provisions are in full for
such persons and public service for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1880; and no Department or officer of the Government
shall during said fiscal year make any contract or incur any
liability for the future payment of money under any of the
provisions of title 26 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States authorizing the appointment or payment of general
or special deputy marshals for service in connection with
elections or on election day until an appropriation sufficient
to meet such contract or pay such liability shall have first
been made by law.
This section of the bill is intended to make an extensive and
essential change in the existing laws. The following are the
provisions of the statutes on the same subject which are now in force:
SEC. 3679. No Department of the Government shall expend in any
one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by
Congress for that fiscal year, or involve the Government in
any contract for the future payment of money in excess of such
appropriations.
SEC. 3732. No contract or purchase on behalf of the United
States shall be made unless the same is authorized by law or
is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment, except
in the War and Navy Departments, for clothing, subsistence,
forage, fuel, quarters, or transportation, which, however,
shall not exceed the necessities of the current year.
The object of these sections of the Revised Statutes is plain. It is,
first, to prevent any money from being expended unless appropriations
have been made therefor, and, second, to prevent the Government from
being bound by any contract not previously authorized by law, except
for certain necessary purposes in the War and Navy Departments.
Under the existing laws the failure of Congress to make the
appropriations required for the execution of the provisions of the
election laws would not prevent their enforcement. The right and duty
to appoint the general and special deputy marshals which they provide
for would still remain, and the executive department of the Government
would also be empowered to incur the requisite liability for
their compensation. But the second section of this bill contains a
prohibition not found in any previous legislation. Its design is to
render the election laws inoperative and a dead letter during the
next fiscal year. It is sought to accomplish this by omitting to
appropriate money for their enforcement and by expressly prohibiting
any Department or officer of the Government from incurring any
liability under any of the provisions of title 26 of the Revised
Statutes authorizing the appointment or payment of general or special
deputy marshals for service on election days until an appropriation
sufficient to pay such liability shall have first been made.
The President is called upon to give his affirmative approval to
positive enactments which in effect deprive him of the ordinary and
necessary means of executing laws still left in the statute book
and embraced within his constitutional duty to see that the laws are
executed. If he approves the bill, and thus gives to such positive
enactments the authority of law, he participates in the curtailment
of his means of seeing that the law is faithfully executed, while
the obligation of the law and of his constitutional duty remains
unimpaired.
The appointment of special deputy marshals is not made by the statute
a spontaneous act of authority on the part of any executive or
judicial officer of the Government, but is accorded as a popular right
of the citizens to call into operation this agency for securing the
purity and freedom of elections in any city or town having 20,000
inhabitants or upward. Section 2021 of the Revised Statutes puts it in
the power of any two citizens of such city or town to require of
the marshal of the district the appointment of these special deputy
marshals. Thereupon the duty of the marshal becomes imperative, and
its nonperformance would expose him to judicial mandate or punishment
or to removal from office by the President, as the circumstances of
his conduct might require. The bill now before me neither revokes this
popular right of the citizens, nor relieves the marshal of the duty
imposed by law, nor the President of his duty to see that this law is
faithfully executed.
I forbear to enter again upon any general discussion of the wisdom
and necessity of the election laws or of the dangerous and
unconstitutional principle of this bill--that the power vested in
Congress to originate appropriations involves the right to compel the
Executive to approve any legislation which Congress may see fit to
attach to such bills, under the penalty of refusing the means needed
to carry on essential functions of the Government. My views on these
subjects have been sufficiently presented in the special messages sent
by me to the House of Representatives during their present session.
What was said in those messages I regard as conclusive as to my
duty in respect to the bill before me. The arguments urged in those
communications against the repeal of the election laws and against
the right of Congress to deprive the Executive of that separate and
independent discretion and judgment which the Constitution confers and
requires are equally cogent in opposition to this bill. This
measure leaves the powers and duties of the supervisors of elections
untouched. The compensation of those officers is provided for under
permanent laws, and no liability for which an appropriation is now
required would therefore be incurred by their appointment. But the
power of the National Government to protect them in the discharge of
their duty at the polls would be taken away. The States may employ
both civil and military power at the elections, but by this bill even
the civil authority to protect Congressional elections is denied to
the United States. The object is to prevent any adequate control
by the United States over the national elections by forbidding
the payment of deputy marshals, the officers who are clothed with
authority to enforce the election laws.
The fact that these laws are deemed objectionable by a majority of
both Houses of Congress is urged as a sufficient warrant for this
legislation.
There are two lawful ways to overturn legislative enactments. One
is their repeal; the other is the decision of a competent tribunal
against their validity. The effect of this bill is to deprive the
executive department of the Government of the means to execute laws
which are not repealed, which have not been declared invalid, and
which it is therefore the duty of the executive and of every other
department of Government to obey and to enforce.
I have in my former message on this subject expressed a willingness
to concur in suitable amendments for the improvement of the election
laws; but I can not consent to their absolute and entire repeal, and I
can not approve legislation which seeks to prevent their enforcement.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 27, 1879_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 595,[28] with the following
objection to its becoming a law:
Doubts have arisen upon consideration of the bill as to whether Major
Collins will be required under it to refund to the United States the
pay and allowances received by him at the time he was mustered out of
the service. Believing that it was not the intention of Congress to
require such repayment, the bill is returned without my signature to
the House in which it originated.
R.B. HAYES.
[Footnote 28: "An act to amend 'An act for the relief of Joseph B.
Collins, approved March 3, 1879.'"]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 30, 1879_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,
the bill entitled "An act making appropriations to pay fees of United
States marshals and their general deputies," with the following
objections to its becoming a law:
The bill appropriates the sum of $600,000 for the payment during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, of United States marshals and their
general deputies. The offices thus provided for are essential to the
faithful execution of the laws. They were created and their powers and
duties defined by Congress at its first session after the adoption of
the Constitution in the judiciary act which was approved September
24, 1789. Their general duties, as defined in the act which originally
established them, were substantially the same as those prescribed in
the statutes now in force.
The principal provision on the subject in the Revised Statutes is as
follows:
SEC. 787. It shall be the duty of the marshal of each district
to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting
therein, and to execute throughout the district all lawful
precepts directed to him and issued under the authority of
the United States; and he shall have power to command all
necessary assistance in the execution of his duty.
The original act was amended February 28, 1795, and the amendment is
now found in the Revised Statutes in the following form:
SEC. 788. The marshals and their deputies shall have in each
State the same powers in executing the laws of the United
States as the sheriffs and their deputies in such State may
have by law in executing the laws thereof.
By subsequent statutes additional duties have been from time to time
imposed upon the marshals and their deputies, the due and regular
performance of which are required for the efficiency of almost every
branch of the public service. Without these officers there would be
no means of executing the warrants, decrees, or other process of
the courts, and the judicial system of the country would be fatally
defective. The criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States is very extensive. The crimes committed within the maritime
jurisdiction of the United States are all cognizable only in the
courts of the United States. Crimes against public justice; crimes
against the operations of the Government, such as forging or
counterfeiting the money or securities of the United States; crimes
against the postal laws; offenses against the elective franchise,
against the civil rights of citizens, against the existence of the
Government; crimes against the internal-revenue laws, the customs
laws, the neutrality laws; crimes against laws for the protection of
Indians and of the public lands--all of these crimes and many others
can be punished only under United States laws, laws which, taken
together, constitute a body of jurisprudence which is vital to the
welfare of the whole country, and which can be enforced only by means
of the marshals and deputy marshals of the United States. In the
District of Columbia all of the process of the courts is executed by
the officers in question. In short, the execution of the criminal laws
of the United States, the service of all civil process in cases in
which the United States is a party, and the execution of the revenue
laws, the neutrality laws, and many other laws of large importance
depend on the maintenance of the marshals and their deputies. They are
in effect the only police of the United States Government. Officers
with corresponding powers and duties are found in every State of the
Union and in every country which has a jurisprudence which is worthy
of the name. To deprive the National Government of these officers
would be as disastrous to society as to abolish the sheriffs,
constables, and police officers in the several States. It would be a
denial to the United States of the right to execute its laws--a
denial of all authority which requires the use of civil force. The law
entitles these officers to be paid. The funds needed for the purpose
have been collected from the people and are now in the Treasury. No
objection is, therefore, made to that part of the bill before me which
appropriates money for the support of the marshals and deputy marshals
of the United States.
The bill contains, however, other provisions which are identical in
tenor and effect with the second section of the bill entitled "An act
making appropriations for certain judicial expenses," which on the 23d
of the present month was returned to the House of Representatives
with my objections to its approval. The provisions referred to are as
follows:
SEC. 2. That the sums appropriated in this act for the persons
and public service embraced in its provisions are in full for
such persons and public service for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1880; and no Department or officer of the Government
shall during said fiscal year make any contract or incur any
liability for the future payment of money under any of the
provisions of title 26 mentioned in section 1 of this act
until an appropriation sufficient to meet such contract or pay
such liability shall have first been made by law.
Upon a reconsideration in the House of Representatives of the bill
which contained these provisions it lacked a constitutional majority,
and therefore failed to become a law. In order to secure its
enactment, the same measure is again presented for my approval,
coupled in the bill before me with appropriations for the support of
marshals and their deputies during the next fiscal year. The object,
manifestly, is to place before the Executive this alternative: Either
to allow necessary functions of the public service to be crippled
or suspended for want of the appropriations required to keep them in
operation, or to approve legislation which in official communications
to Congress he has declared would be a violation of his constitutional
duty. Thus in this bill the principle is clearly embodied that by
virtue of the provision of the Constitution which requires that
"all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives" a bare majority of the House of Representatives has
the right to withhold appropriations for the support of the Government
unless the Executive consents to approve any legislation which may
be attached to appropriation bills. I respectfully refer to the
communications on this subject which I have sent to Congress during
its present session for a statement of the grounds of my conclusions,
and desire here merely to repeat that in my judgment to establish
the principle of this bill is to make a radical, dangerous, and
unconstitutional change in the character of our institutions.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
PROCLAMATIONS.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas it has become known to me that certain evil-disposed persons
have within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States begun
and set on foot preparations for an organized and forcible possession
of and settlement upon the lands of what is known as the Indian
Territory, west of the State of Arkansas, which Territory is
designated, recognized, and described by the treaties and laws of the
United States and by the executive authorities as Indian country, and
as such is only subject to occupation by Indian tribes, officers of
the Indian Department, military posts, and such persons as may be
privileged to reside and trade therein under the intercourse laws of
the United States; and
Whereas those laws provide for the removal of all persons residing and
trading therein without express permission of the Indian Department
and agents, and also of all persons whom such agents may deem to be
improper persons to reside in the Indian country:
Now, therefore, for the purpose of properly protecting the interests
of the Indian nations and tribes, as well as of the United States, in
said Indian Territory, and of duly enforcing the laws governing the
same, I, Rutherford B. Hayes, President of the United States, do
admonish and warn all such persons so intending or preparing to remove
upon said lands or into said Territory without permission of the
proper agent of the Indian Department against any attempt to so remove
or settle upon any of the lands of said Territory; and I do further
warn and notify any and all such persons who may so offend that they
will be speedily and immediately removed therefrom by the agent,
according to the laws made and provided; and if necessary the aid and
assistance of the military forces of the United States will be invoked
to carry into proper execution the laws of the United States herein
referred to.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 26th day of April, A.D. 1879, and
of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and third.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
By the President:
WM. M. EVARTS,
_Secretary of State_.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
A PROCLAMATION.
At no recurrence of the season which the devout habit of a religious
people has made the occasion for giving thanks to Almighty God and
humbly invoking His continued favor has the material prosperity
enjoyed by our whole country been more conspicuous, more manifold, or
more universal.
During the past year, also, unbroken peace with all foreign nations,
the general prevalence of domestic tranquillity, the supremacy and
security of the great institutions of civil and religious freedom,
have gladdened the hearts of our people and confirmed their attachment
to their Government, which the wisdom and courage of our ancestors so
fitly framed and the wisdom and courage of their descendants have
so firmly maintained to be the habitation of liberty and justice to
successive generations.
Now, therefore, I, Rutherford B. Hayes, President of the United
States, do appoint Thursday, the 27th day of November instant, as a
day of national thanksgiving and prayer; and I earnestly recommend
that, withdrawing themselves from secular cares and labors, the people
of the United States do meet together on that day in their respective
places of worship, there to give thanks and praise to Almighty God for
His mercies and to devoutly beseech their continuance.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 3d day of November, A.D. 1879,
and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and
fourth.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.
By the President:
WM. M. EVARTS,
_Secretary of State_.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
[From the New-York Tribune, February 14, 1879.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 4, 1879._
General E.A. MERRITT.
MY DEAR GENERAL: I congratulate you on your confirmation. It is a
great gratification to me, very honorable to you, and will prove,
I believe, of signal service to the country. My desire is that the
office be conducted on strictly business principles, and according to
the rules for the civil service which were recommended by the Civil
Service Commission in the Administration of General Grant. I want
you to be perfectly independent of mere influence from any quarter.
Neither my recommendation, nor that of Secretary Sherman, nor of
any member of Congress or other influential person must be specially
regarded. Let appointments and removals be made on business principles
and according to rules. There must be, I assume, a few places filled
by those you personally know to be trustworthy, but restrict the area
of patronage to the narrowest limits. Let no man be put out merely
because he is a friend to Mr. Arthur, and no man put in merely because
he is our friend. The good of the service should be the sole end in
view. The best means yet presented, it seems to me, are the rules
recommended by the Civil Service Commission. I shall issue no new
order on the subject at present. I am glad you approve of the message,
and I wish you to see that all that is expressed or implied in it is
faithfully carried out.
Again congratulating you, and assuring you of my entire confidence,
I remain, sincerely,
R.B. HAYES.
Regulations to Prevent the Introduction of the "Plague" into the
United States.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SURGEON-GENERAL,
UNITED STATES MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICE,
_Washington, D.C., March 3, 1879._
_To Officers of the Customs Revenue, Medical Officers of the
Marine-Hospital Service, and others whom it may concern_:
The act approved April 29, 1878, entitled "An act to prevent the
introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United
States," provides that no vessel coming from any foreign port or
country where any contagious or infectious disease exists, nor any
vessel conveying infected merchandise, shall enter any port of the
United States or pass the boundary line between the United States and
any foreign country except in such manner as may be prescribed under
said act.
Attention has been called to the prevalence of a dangerous epidemic
disease in southern Russia known as the "plague," and its extremely
virulent and contagious character, as manifested in the late outbreak,
leaves no doubt that it is similar to, if not identical with, the
"plague" which devastated the Old World in past centuries. Because,
therefore, of the danger which attaches to rags, furs, etc., as
carriers of infection, the following regulations are framed, under
the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and subject to the
approval of the President, for the protection of the health of the
people of the United States against the danger referred to:
Until further orders no vessel from any port of the Black Sea or the
Sea of Azof, conveying any rags, furs, skins, hair, feathers, boxed
or baled clothing or bedding, or any similar articles liable to convey
infection, nor any vessel from any port of the Mediterranean or Red
seas having on board such articles coming from southern Russia, shall
enter any port of the United States until such articles shall have
been removed from the vessel to open lighters or to some isolated
locality and the vessel disinfected and thoroughly ventilated; and the
suspected articles shall be disinfected, either by chemical agents and
exposure to free currents of air or by burning, as shall be determined
in each case by the Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service.
The certificate of the State or municipal quarantine officer of health
may be accepted as satisfactory evidence of compliance with these
regulations on the part of the vessel.
JNO. M. WOODWORTH,
_Surgeon-General United States Marine-Hospital Service._
Approved:
R.B. HAYES.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, NEW YORK CITY,
_Collector's Office, February 26, 1879._
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
_Secretary of the Treasury._
SIR: The President, by letter of 4th instant, having requested
that appointments and promotions in this office should be made in
accordance with the civil-service rules of 1872, and having also made
a similar request of the naval officer, it has been deemed best to
make, if practicable, the same rules applicable to all the offices
in this city included in the order of the Treasury Department dated
August 7, 1872.
With that view, and after several conferences, it has been agreed
by the assistant treasurer, naval officer, appraiser, surveyor, and
myself to submit the inclosed modifications of the rules of 1872, and
should they meet approval to put in operation forthwith the rules so
modified.
I am, very respectfully,
E.A. MERRITT, _Collector._
[The modifications submitted with the above letter are omitted,
and instead are inserted the following regulations, based upon said
modifications, approved by the President March 6, 1879, and amended
with his approval in January, 1880.]
Regulations Governing Appointments and Promotions in the Customs
Service and Subtreasury in the City of New York.
I. Every application for appointment to a vacancy in the lowest grade
of any group in the offices of the collector and the surveyor of
customs, the naval officer, the appraiser, and the assistant treasurer
of the United States in the city of New York must be made in the
handwriting of the applicant to the head of the office in which
employment is desired. It must state: (1) The position to which the
applicant desires to be appointed;[29] (2) place and date of birth;
(3) legal residence, and how long it has been such; (4) education; (5)
occupation, past and present; (6) whether ever employed in the civil
service, and, if so, when, how long, in what branch and capacity, and
reasons for leaving the service; (7) whether ever in the Regular or
Volunteer Army or Navy, and, if so, when and in what organization and
capacity; (8) applicant's name in full.
II. The applicant must certify to having composed and written the
application without assistance; to the truth of the statements which
it contains; to being a citizen of the United States, and faithful
to the Union and the Constitution; and, if ever in the Regular or
Volunteer Army or Navy, to having been honorably discharged.
III. Every application must be accompanied by a certificate, signed by
two trustworthy and responsible persons, well known in the community
in which they reside, that the applicant is personally well known to
them to be of good moral character and of temperate and industrious
habits, and to be faithful to the Union and the Constitution of the
United States.
IV. Every application must also be accompanied by the certificate of a
practicing physician as to the applicant's general health and physical
capacity to perform the duties of the position to which he desires to
be appointed: _Provided, however_, That no appointment will be made to
any position in active outdoor service unless a surgeon of the United
States Marine-Hospital Service shall certify that he has made a
physical examination of the applicant and found him fit for such
position. Such surgeon's examination may be postponed until required
by the nominating officer.
V. Applications filed previously to the adoption of these regulations
must be renewed or perfected in accordance therewith to entitle them
to consideration. No applications for appointment as day or night
inspectors in the custom-house from persons under 21 years of age,
or for other positions under these regulations from persons under 18
years of age, will be considered. In compliance with section 1031 of
the Treasury Regulations now in force, persons over 45 years of age
are not eligible to any group the lowest grade of which is confined
to persons receiving an annual salary of less than $1,800. This
prohibition, however, shall not be applied to those who have been
honorably discharged from the service and are otherwise qualified.
VI. All applications upon their receipt will be carefully examined
by the board of examiners, and those which do not conform in every
particular to the foregoing requirements, and such as show that the
applicants are manifestly not qualified for the duties of the position
desired, will be rejected and the applicants so notified. All other
applicants will be designated as eligible for examination, and will
be so notified. Inasmuch as applications are to be made in writing and
each case is to be decided upon its merits, personal importunity will
have no weight.
VII. Not less than five days prior to each examination a notification
to appear at a time and place to be stated will be mailed to the
eligible candidates, unless it shall be found impracticable to examine
all of them, in which case a practicable number will be selected under
the second regulation[30] for the civil service promulgated April 16,
1872, and notified to appear for examination. Those not selected for
examination will remain on the eligible list. If any person notified
to appear shall be unable to do so on account of sickness or other
causes, he must promptly advise the board of examiners, in person or
by mail, of his inability to attend, and his name will remain upon
the eligible list; but any person attending an examination will not be
allowed to subsequently plead sickness or other disabling causes as an
excuse for defects in examination.
VIII. All candidates for appointment to positions the annual salary
of which is $1,200 or more, who shall appear in accordance with such
notification, will be subjected to a competitive written examination
upon the following subjects:
(1) Copying from dictation; (2) arithmetic--fundamental rules,
fractions, proportion, percentage and interest, reduction; (3)
elements of accounts and bookkeeping; (4) geography, history, and
government--general questions, principally such as relate to the
United States; (5) elements of English grammar, chiefly orthography
and syntax; (6) writing and briefing letters; and (7) penmanship.
Candidates for appointment to positions the salary of which is
less than $1,200 will be examined in like manner upon the following
subjects: (1) Penmanship, (2) copying; (3) elements of English
grammar, chiefly orthography and syntax; and (4) fundamental rules of
arithmetic.
Proficiency in penmanship, orthography, and punctuation will be
determined principally by a review of the examination papers, and as
far as possible the examination in all the branches will be confined
to practical exercises.
In examinations for appointments to positions requiring special
or technical knowledge such additions may be made by the board of
examiners to the list of subjects as the nature of the case may
require.
For temporary employment to meet casual exigencies in the public
business, or for special services as experts, appointments may be made
without examination; but no such appointment shall be made for a term
exceeding three months, which may be specially extended for a similar
term only; and no such appointment shall be made to any regular or
permanent position.
IX. The various subjects of the examination may be subdivided, if
thought desirable, into classes, and to each subject or class a
relative weight, according to its importance in the examination, will
be assigned by each board of examiners. The mode of ascertaining the
result of the examination will be as follows: The degree of accuracy
with which each question shall be answered will first be marked by the
board on a scale of 100. The average of the marks given to the answers
to the questions in each subject or class will next be ascertained.
Each average will then be multiplied by the number indicating the
relative weight of the subject or class, and the sum of the products
will be divided by the sum of the relative weights. The quotient will
determine the candidate's standing in the examination. Relative weight
will be assigned not merely to the special qualifications of the
candidates, but to their general aptitude, as shown in the course of
examination. Candidates will be examined during office hours, and in
no case will their examination be continued more than one day.
X. The board of examiners will prepare a list of the persons examined
in the order of their excellence, as proved by such examination,
beginning with the highest, and will then certify to the head of the
office the names standing at the head of such list, not exceeding
three. When more than one appointment is to be made, the vacancies
will be numbered, and the first three names will be certified for
the first vacancy, the remaining two and the fourth for the second
vacancy, the remaining two and the fifth for the third vacancy, and so
on for the whole number of vacancies; but if, after selecting one
of any three certified for appointment, the head of the office shall
object to another presentation of either of the remaining names, it
shall not be again certified.
XI. The examination papers of any candidate who shall have passed a
minimum standard of 75 per cent, but who shall fail to be appointed,
will, if requested by the candidate, be brought into competition with
those candidates who shall compete for vacancies of the same class
and nature occurring within one year: _Provided, however_, That the
candidate shall not have been specially objected to by the head of
the office under the last preceding regulation. No candidate who upon
examination has been marked below the minimum will be allowed to again
compete within one year from the date of such examination, unless for
admission to a lower group.
XII. All examination papers will be filed, and will at all times be
open to the inspection of those interested, under such restrictions as
may be imposed by the head of the office.
XIII. There shall be one examining board for all appointments
and promotions under these rules in the offices of the collector,
surveyor, and naval officer, which shall consist of the surveyor and
one representative to be nominated each by the collector and the
naval officer, and three alternates, to be nominated one each by the
collector, the naval officer, and the surveyor: _Provided, however_,
That in examinations for positions in the surveyor's office the
surveyor's alternate shall act on such board. The examining boards in
the offices of the assistant treasurer and the appraiser shall consist
of three persons, with three alternates, to be nominated by the
assistant treasurer and the appraiser, respectively. All nominations
as members and alternates on the examining boards shall be submitted
to the Secretary of the Treasury for his approval. The heads of the
several offices shall constitute a board of revision and appeal,
which, upon appeal from any person examined or from any member of an
examining board, shall revise the decision of said board.
XIV. Whenever the head of an office shall notify the board of
examiners for such office that a vacancy which he desires to fill
exists in any grade above the lowest not excepted from the rules
and regulations for the civil service, the board will fix a time for
holding an examination for the purpose, and at least five days before
the same is to take place will cause a notice to be posted in a
conspicuous place in the office, stating the grade and group of the
vacancy, the date of the examination, and that the vacancy is to be
filled by a competitive examination of applicants from the next lower
grade, unless none in such lower grade be found qualified, when those
in the next lower grade may compete, or, if there be none in any of
the lower grades qualified, competition will be open to applicants. In
any examination for promotion, if the competitors from the next
lower grade shall not exceed three in number, the board may, at its
discretion, open the competition to the next lower grade or below, as
they may deem best; and furthermore, if such promotion would probably
occasion vacancies requiring other promotions, the board may combine
in one the necessary examinations for such promotions. No person who
has been examined in any grade for promotion and failed to receive
such promotion shall again be admitted to examination within six
months, but in the meantime his general average, as ascertained by
such examination, may be brought into competition, as provided in
Regulation XI.
XV. The examination will be held upon the general subjects fixed for
examinations for admission to the lowest grade of the group and upon
such other subjects as the general nature of the business of the
office and the special nature of the position to be filled may seem
to the board of examiners to require. Due weight will be given to the
efficiency with which the several candidates shall have previously
performed their duties in the office; but no one who shall fail to
pass a minimum standard of 75 per cent in the written examination will
be certified for appointment.
XVI. If no applicants from within the group shall be found competent,
an examination will be held of all who shall make application in
accordance with the regulations governing applications for admission
to the office, after due public notice by the head of the office. The
examination will be conducted in accordance with the provisions for
admission to the office, as required by the fourth rule[31] for the
civil service promulgated December 19, 1871, but the nature of the
examination will be the same as in any previous examination for the
same vacancy.
XVII. The list of names from which the appointment is to be made will
be prepared and certified in the manner provided for admission to the
lowest grade.
XVIII. Persons employed in any of the offices to which these rules are
applicable may be transferred without examination from one office to
a grade no higher in another office, with, the consent of the heads
of the respective offices and the approval of the Secretary of the
Treasury.
XIX. Under the provisions of rule 2[32] of August 5, 1873, and the
operation of these regulations, the power of suspension and of
recommendation for discharge from the service shall remain with the
nominating officer unrestricted. If, however, in his judgment it be
deemed advisable, he may direct any person in his department to be
cited before the regular examining board, and such board shall examine
into and report upon the qualifications, efficiency, and general
fitness for the position held, or for any position in the same or a
lower grade, of the person so cited to appear; and furthermore, any
person in the service engaged in active outdoor duties may be cited to
appear before a surgeon of the United States Marine-Hospital Service
and be examined by such surgeon as to the physical abilities of such
person to perform the duties of the position occupied or of a position
of less exposure, if otherwise qualified.
XX. The sessions of the examining boards shall not be open to the
public, but the board of revision and appeal may select such number
of prominent citizens as may be deemed advisable, who shall have
free access to the examining rooms, and who shall take no part in the
conduct of the examination, but may, by inspection and inquiry,
assure themselves regarding its thoroughness and impartiality, and may
publicly certify the results of their inspection.
[Seventh rule for the civil service under the Executive order
of April 16, 1872.[33]]
The appointment of all persons entering the civil service in
accordance with these regulations, excepting persons appointed by
the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
postmasters, and persons appointed to any position in a foreign
country, shall be made for a probationary term of six months, during
which the conduct and capacity of such persons shall be tested; and
if at the end of said probationary term satisfactory proofs of their
fitness shall have been furnished by the board of examiners to the
head of the Department in which they shall have been employed during
said term, they shall be reappointed.
[Fourth regulation for the civil service under the Executive
order of April 16, 1872[34]]
The appointment of persons to be employed exclusively in the
secret service of the Government, also of persons to be employed
as translators, stenographers, or private secretaries, * * * may be
excepted from the operation of the rules.
[Ninth rule for the civil service under the Executive order of
April 16, 1872. [35]]
Any person who, after long and faithful service in a Department,
shall be incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity for the efficient
discharge of the duties of his position may be appointed by the
head of the Department, at his discretion, to a position of less
responsibility in the same Department.
[Seventh rule for the civil service under the Executive order
of August 5, 1873.[36]]
Applicants for appointment as cashiers of collectors of customs,
cashiers of assistant treasurers, cashiers of postmasters,
superintendents of money-order divisions in post-offices, and other
custodians of large sums of public money for whose fidelity another
officer has given official bonds maybe appointed at discretion; but
this rule shall not apply to any appointment to a position grouped
below the grade of assistant teller.
The amendments of the New York custom-house rules seem proper.
R.B.H.
[Footnote 29: The positions for which applications may be made in the
several offices are: Collector's and surveyor's office: (1) Inspector,
at salary of $4 per day; (2) clerk, at annual salary of $1,200; (3)
weigher's clerk, at annual salary of $1,200; (4) ganger's clerk, at
annual salary of $1,200; (5) night inspector, at a salary of $2.50 per
day, and clerk, at an annual salary of less than $1,200.
Naval office: (1) Clerk, at an annual salary of $1,200; (2) clerk, at
an annual salary of less than $1,200.
Assistant treasurer's office: (1) Clerk, at an annual salary of
$2,000; (2) clerk, at an annual salary of $1,200; (3) clerk, at an
annual salary of less than $1,200.
Appraiser's office: (1) Examiner, at an annual salary of $1,800; (2)
clerk, verifier, or sampler, at an annual salary of $1,200; (3) clerk,
verifier, or sampler, at an annual salary of less than $1,200; (4)
openers and packers, at a salary of $3 per day.]
[Footnote 30: See p. 181.]
[Footnote 31: See p. 158.]
[Footnote 32: See p. 231.]
[Footnote 33: See rule 7, promulgated December 19, 1871, p.158.]
[Footnote 34: See p. 181.]
[Footnote 35: See rule 9, promulgated December 19, 1871, p. 158.]
[Footnote 36: See p. 232.]
MARCH 6, 1879.
General E.A. MERRITT,
_Collector of Customs, New York_
SIR: Your letter of the 26th ultimo, inclosing a draft of modification
of the civil-service rules, was duly received, and the rules have been
considered and approved by the President. You may therefore act upon
them.
Very respectfully,
JOHN SHERMAN,
_Secretary_.
RULES GOVERNING APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION IN THE NEW YORK POST-OFFICE.
For the purpose of making it more certain that only persons of
good character and adequate capacity shall be selected from among
applicants too numerous for the postmaster to become informed of their
individual merits by personal investigation, the following rules are
established:
1. Hereafter all applications for clerical appointment at this
post-office must be made in accordance with a prescribed form, a copy
of which will be furnished to each applicant.
2. All appointments to clerical positions will be made to the lowest
grade, and no applications from persons under 16 or over 25 years of
age will be entertained.
3. On receipt of an application for appointment, and before further
action is taken in regard to it, the applicant will be referred to the
medical officer for examination as to his physical condition, as
being adequate for the service; and if the report is unfavorable the
application will be rejected. Should the report be favorable, the
application will be filed and registered in its regular order.
4. Every application must be accompanied by a certificate, signed by
not less than three nor more than five reputable citizens, stating
the time for which each has been acquainted with the applicant,
and testifying to his good character and reputation for integrity,
sobriety, and industry, and to the willingness of the signers to
furnish personally any further information they may possess concerning
the applicant, if so requested by the postmaster or the board of
examiners.
5. Applications not properly filled out as herein required, or which
are found to contain false statements, or which in any other manner
show the unfitness of the applicant for employment in the post-office,
will be rejected and the applicant notified of such rejection.
6. All examination papers, with the markings showing the relative
proficiency of the candidates, will be carefully preserved and filed.
7. The names of candidates which have been on the register for
one year without being reached for examination will be regarded as
removed, and will not be selected for examination unless again
placed on the register by a new application, after which they will be
selected when reached in order.
8. All applications duly received and filed shall, when reached in
order, be referred to a board of examiners, which is hereby appointed,
and which shall consist of the assistant postmaster, auditor, the
general superintendents of the fourth, fifth, and sixth divisions,
and the assistant general superintendent of the third division. The
postmaster's private secretary shall also act as secretary of said
board.
9. When vacancies occur in the lowest grade, the board of examiners
shall notify such number of applicants, not less than twenty, of
those first on the register of applicants to appear for a competitive
examination.
10. The questions to be asked and answered at such examinations shall
be such as will show the relative proficiency of the candidates,
first, in penmanship; second, in arithmetic; third, in geography;
fourth, in English grammar; fifth, in the history of the United States
and in matters of a public nature, to the extent that may be required
adequately to test general capacity or special fitness for the postal
service.
11. The board shall present to the postmaster a list of the names of
the successful candidates in the order of their excellence, as shown
by the examination, beginning with the highest; and the appointments
will be made from the three highest names on the list.
12. All further details in methods of examination will be left to
the discretion of the board, but subject to the instructions of the
postmaster, in conformity herewith.
13. All vacancies that may occur in the higher grades of any
department shall be filled by promotion from the lower grades by means
of competitive examinations, to which shall be admitted as competitors
such persons only as are already employed in the division in which the
vacancy exists or in divisions having analogous duties. The questions
in these examinations shall be restricted mainly to matters pertaining
to the ordinary business of that department. The examinations shall be
conducted by the general superintendent of the division to which the
department is attached, assisted by such one or more other officers
of the same as the postmaster may select; and they shall report the
result to the postmaster in the manner provided in rule 11, and the
vacancy will be filled by the promotion of some one of the three
standing highest in the competition. But whenever the vacancy to be
filled by promotion is that of a position requiring the exercise of
administrative authority the board may add such questions as will test
the degree to which the candidates possess special qualifications for
such position.
14. For positions as porters the examination will be confined to
questions intended to test the physical ability of the candidates and
their proficiency in reading, penmanship, and elementary arithmetic
only.
15. The postmaster reserves from the operation of the above rules for
original Appointment and promotion positions of especial pecuniary
trust, as well as those involving confidential relations, as private
secretary, etc.
THOMAS L. JAMES, _Postmaster_.
Approved. Let these rules go into effect May 1, 1879.
D.M. KEY, _Postmaster-General._
APRIL 3, 1879.
The foregoing rules are approved.
R.B. HAYES.
[From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1879.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 28, 1879_.
SIR:[37] I am directed by the President to say that the several
Departments of the Government will be closed on Friday, the 30th
instant, in remembrance of those who fell in defense of the nation,
and to enable the employees to participate in the commemorative
ceremonies of the day.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W.K. ROGERS, _Private Secretary_.
[Footnote 37: Addressed to the heads of the Executive Departments,
etc.]
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL,
UNITED STATES MARINE-HOSPITAL SERVICE,
_Washington, D.C., May 31, 1879_.
_To Medical Officers of the Marine-Hospital Service and others whom it
may concern:_
Official information having been received to the effect that the
"plague" which existed in southern Russia is now almost extinct, the
regulations issued March 3, 1879,[38] imposing certain restrictions
upon the importation of rags, etc., into the United States, are hereby
revoked.
By order of the Secretary of the Treasury:
J.B. HAMILTON,
_Surgeon-General United States Marine-Hospital Service_.
Approved: R.B. HAYES.
[Footnote 38: See pp. 549-550.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, November 1, 1879_.
The sad intelligence of the death of Zachariah Chandler, late
Secretary of the Interior, and during so many years a Senator from the
State of Michigan, has been communicated to the Government and to the
country, and in proper respect to his memory I hereby order that the
several Executive Departments be closed to public business and their
flags and those of their dependencies throughout the country be
displayed at half-mast on the day of his funeral.
R.B. HAYES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, November 17, 1879_.
DEAR SIR:[39] I am directed by the President to say that the several
Departments of the Government will be closed on Wednesday, the 19th
instant, to enable the employees to participate in the ceremonies
attending the unveiling of the statue of the late General George H.
Thomas.
Very truly, yours,
W.K. ROGERS, _Private Secretary_.
[Footnote 39: Addressed to the heads of the Executive Departments, etc.]
THIRD ANNUAL MESSAGE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _December 1, 1879_.
_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:_
The members of the Forty-sixth Congress have assembled in their first
regular session under circumstances calling for mutual congratulation
and grateful acknowledgment to the Giver of All Good for the large and
unusual measure of national prosperity which we now enjoy.
The most interesting events which have occurred in our public affairs
since my last annual message to Congress are connected with the
financial operations of the Government, directly affecting the
business interests of the country. I congratulate Congress on the
successful execution of the resumption act. At the time fixed, and
in the manner contemplated by law, United States notes began to
be redeemed in coin. Since the 1st of January last they have been
promptly redeemed on presentation, and in all business transactions,
public and private, in all parts of the country, they are received and
paid out as the equivalent of coin. The demand upon the Treasury
for gold and silver in exchange for United States notes has been
comparatively small, and the voluntary deposit of coin and bullion
in exchange for notes has been very large. The excess of the precious
metals deposited or exchanged for United States notes over the amount
of United States notes redeemed is about $40,000,000.
The resumption of specie payments has been followed by a very great
revival of business. With a currency equivalent in value to the
money of the commercial world, we are enabled to enter upon an equal
competition with other nations in trade and production. The increasing
foreign demand for our manufactures and agricultural products has
caused a large balance of trade in our favor, which has been paid in
gold, from the 1st of July last to November 15, to the amount of about
$59,000,000. Since the resumption of specie payments there has also
been a marked and gratifying improvement of the public credit. The
bonds of the Government bearing only 4 per cent interest have been
sold at or above par, sufficient in amount to pay off all of the
national debt which was redeemable under present laws. The amount of
interest saved annually by the process of refunding the debt since
March 1, 1877, is $14,297,177. The bonds sold were largely in small
sums, and the number of our citizens now holding the public securities
is much greater than ever before. The amount of the national debt
which matures within less than two years is $792,121,700, of which
$500,000,000 bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent, and the balance
is in bonds bearing 6 per cent interest. It is believed that this part
of the public debt can be refunded by the issue of 4 per cent bonds,
and, by the reduction of interest which will thus be effected, about
$11,000,000 can be annually saved to the Treasury. To secure this
important reduction of interest to be paid by the United States
further legislation is required, which it is hoped will be provided by
Congress during its present session.
The coinage of gold by the mints of the United States during the last
fiscal year was $40,986,912. The coinage of silver dollars since
the passage of the act for that purpose up to November 1, 1879, was
$45,000,850, of which $12,700,344 have been issued from the Treasury
and are now in circulation, and $32,300,506 are still in the
possession of the Government.
The pendency of the proposition for unity of action between the United
States and the principal commercial nations of Europe to effect a
permanent system for the equality of gold and silver in the recognized
money of the world leads me to recommend that Congress refrain from
new legislation on the general subject. The great revival of trade,
internal and foreign, will supply during the coming year its own
instructions, which may well be awaited before attempting further
experimental measures with the coinage. I would, however, strongly
urge upon Congress the importance of authorizing the Secretary of the
Treasury to suspend the coinage of silver dollars upon the present
legal ratio. The market value of the silver dollar being uniformly and
largely less than the market value of the gold dollar, it is obviously
impracticable to maintain them at par with each other if both are
coined without limit. If the cheaper coin is forced into circulation,
it will, if coined without limit, soon become the sole standard of
value, and thus defeat the desired object, which is a currency of both
gold and silver which shall be of equivalent value, dollar for dollar,
with the universally recognized money of the world.
The retirement from circulation of United States notes with the
capacity of legal tender in private contracts is a step to be taken
in our progress toward a safe and stable currency which should be
accepted as the policy and duty of the Government and the interest
and security of the people. It is my firm conviction that the issue of
legal-tender paper money based wholly upon the authority and credit of
the Government, except in extreme emergency, is without warrant in the
Constitution and a violation of sound financial principles. The issue
of United States notes during the late civil war with the capacity of
legal tender between private individuals was not authorized except as
a means of rescuing the country from imminent peril. The circulation
of these notes as paper money for any protracted period of time after
the accomplishment of this purpose was not contemplated by the
framers of the law under which they were issued. They anticipated the
redemption and withdrawal of these notes at the earliest practicable
period consistent with the attainment of the object for which they
were provided.
The policy of the United States, steadily adhered to from the adoption
of the Constitution, has been to avoid the creation of a national
debt; and when, from necessity in time of war, debts have been
created, they have been paid off, on the return of peace, as rapidly
as possible. With this view, and for this purpose, it is recommended
that the existing laws for the accumulation of a sinking fund
sufficient to extinguish the public debt within a limited period
be maintained. If any change of the objects or rates of taxation is
deemed necessary by Congress, it is suggested that experience has
shown that a duty can be placed on tea and coffee which will not
enhance the price of those articles to the consumer, and which will
add several millions of dollars annually to the Treasury.
The continued deliberate violation by a large number of the prominent
and influential citizens of the Territory of Utah of the laws of the
United States for the prosecution and punishment of polygamy demands
the attention of every department of the Government. This Territory
has a population sufficient to entitle it to admission as a State,
and the general interests of the nation, as well as the welfare of the
citizens of the Territory, require its advance from the Territorial
form of government to the responsibilities and privileges of a State.
This important change will not, however, be approved by the country
while the citizens of Utah in very considerable number uphold a
practice which is condemned as a crime by the laws of all civilized
communities throughout the world.
The law for the suppression of this offense was enacted with great
unanimity by Congress more than seventeen years ago, but has remained
until recently a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, because of the
peculiar difficulties attending its enforcement. The opinion widely
prevailed among the citizens of Utah that the law was in contravention
of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This objection
is now removed. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the
law to be within the legislative power of Congress and binding as a
rule of action for all who reside within the Territories. There is
no longer any reason for delay or hesitation in its enforcement.
It should be firmly and effectively executed. If not sufficiently
stringent in its provisions, it should be amended; and in aid of the
purpose in view I recommend that more comprehensive and more searching
methods for preventing as well as punishing this crime be provided. If
necessary to secure obedience to the law, the enjoyment and exercise
of the rights and privileges of citizenship in the Territories of the
United States may be withheld or withdrawn from those who violate or
oppose the enforcement of the law on this subject.
The elections of the past year, though occupied only with State
officers, have not failed to elicit in the political discussions which
attended them all over the country new and decisive evidence of the
deep interest which the great body of citizens take in the progress
of the country toward a more general and complete establishment, at
whatever cost, of universal security and freedom in the exercise of
the elective franchise. While many topics of political concern demand
great attention from our people, both in the sphere of national and
State authority, I find no reason to qualify the opinion I expressed
in my last annual message, that no temporary or administrative
interests of government, however urgent or weighty, will ever
displace the zeal of our people in defense of the primary rights of
citizenship, and that the power of public opinion will override all
political prejudices, and all sectional and State attachments in
demanding that all over our wide territory the name and character of
citizen of the United States shall mean one and the same thing and
carry with them unchallenged security and respect. I earnestly appeal
to the intelligence and patriotism of all good citizens of every part
of the country, however much they may be divided in opinions on other
political subjects, to unite in compelling obedience to existing laws
aimed at the protection of the right of suffrage. I respectfully urge
upon Congress to supply any defects in these laws which experience has
shown and which it is within its power to remedy. I again invoke the
cooperation of the executive and legislative authorities of the States
in this great purpose. I am fully convinced that if the public mind
can be set at rest on this paramount question of popular rights no
serious obstacle will thwart or delay the complete pacification of the
country or retard the general diffusion of prosperity.
In a former message I invited the attention of Congress to the
subject of the reformation of the civil service of the Government,
and expressed the intention of transmitting to Congress as early as
practicable a report upon this subject by the chairman of the Civil
Service Commission.
In view of the facts that during a considerable period the Government
of Great Britain has been dealing with administrative problems and
abuses in various particulars analogous to those presented in this
country, and that in recent years the measures adopted were understood
to have been effective and in every respect highly satisfactory, I
thought it desirable to have fuller information upon the subject, and
accordingly requested the chairman of the Civil Service Commission to
make a thorough investigation for this purpose. The result has been an
elaborate and comprehensive report.
The report sets forth the history of the partisan spoils system
in Great Britain, and of the rise and fall of the parliamentary
patronage, and of official interference with the freedom of elections.
It shows that after long trials of various kinds of examinations those
which are competitive and open on equal terms to all, and which are
carried on under the superintendence of a single commission, have,
with great advantage, been established as conditions of admission to
almost every official place in the subordinate administration of that
country and of British India. The completion of the report, owing to
the extent of the labor involved in its preparation and the omission
of Congress to make any provision either for the compensation or the
expenses of the Commission, has been postponed until the present time.
It is herewith transmitted to Congress.
While the reform measures of another government are of no authority
for us, they are entitled to influence to the extent to which their
intrinsic wisdom and their adaptation to our institutions and
social life may commend them to our consideration. The views I have
heretofore expressed concerning the defects and abuses in our civil
administration remain unchanged, except in so far as an enlarged
experience has deepened my sense of the duty both of officers and of
the people themselves to cooperate for their removal. The grave evils
and perils of a partisan spoils system of appointment to office and of
office tenure are now generally recognized. In the resolutions of
the great parties, in the reports of Departments, in the debates and
proceedings of Congress, in the messages of Executives, the gravity of
these evils has been pointed out and the need of their reform has been
admitted.
To command the necessary support, every measure of reform must be
based on common right and justice, and must be compatible with the
healthy existence of great parties, which are inevitable and essential
in a free state.
When the people have approved a policy at a national election,
confidence on the part of the officers they have selected and of the
advisers who, in accordance with our political institutions, should be
consulted in the policy which it is their duty to carry into effect
is indispensable. It is eminently proper that they should explain it
before the people, as well as illustrate its spirit in the performance
of their official duties.
Very different considerations apply to the greater number of those who
fill the subordinate places in the civil service. Their responsibility
is to their superiors in official position. It is their duty to obey
the legal instructions of those upon whom that authority is devolved,
and their best public service consists in the discharge of their
functions irrespective of partisan politics. Their duties are the
same whatever party is in power and whatever policy prevails. As a
consequence it follows that their tenure of office should not depend
on the prevalence of any policy or the supremacy of any party, but
should be determined by their capacity to serve the people most
usefully quite irrespective of partisan interests. The same
considerations that should govern the tenure should also prevail in
the appointment, discipline, and removal of these subordinates. The
authority of appointment and removal is not a perquisite, which may
be used to aid a friend or reward a partisan, but is a trust, to be
exercised in the public interest under all the sanctions which attend
the obligation to apply the public funds only for public purposes.
Every citizen has an equal right to the honor and profit of
entering the public service of his country. The only just ground of
discrimination is the measure of character and capacity he has to make
that service most useful to the people. Except in cases where,
upon just and recognized principles--as upon the theory of
pensions--offices and promotions are bestowed as rewards for past
services, their bestowal upon any theory which disregards personal
merit is an act of injustice to the citizen, as well as a breach of
that trust subject to which the appointing power is held.
In the light of these principles it becomes of great importance to
provide just and adequate means, especially for every Department and
large administrative office, where personal discrimination on the part
of its head is not practicable, for ascertaining those qualifications
to which appointments and removals should have reference. To fail to
provide such means is not only to deny the opportunity of ascertaining
the facts upon which the most righteous claim to office depends,
but of necessity to discourage all worthy aspirants by handing over
appointments and removals to mere influence and favoritism. If it is
the right of the worthiest claimant to gain the appointment and the
interest of the people to bestow it upon him, it would seem clear that
a wise and just method of ascertaining personal fitness for office
must be an important and permanent function of every just and wise
government. It has long since become impossible in the great offices
for those having the duty of nomination and appointment to personally
examine into the individual qualifications of more than a small
proportion of those seeking office, and with the enlargement of the
civil service that proportion must continue to become less.
In the earlier years of the Government the subordinate offices were so
few in number that it was quite easy for those making appointments
and promotions to personally ascertain the merits of candidates.
Party managers and methods had not then become powerful agencies of
coercion, hostile to the free and just exercise of the appointing
power.
A large and responsible part of the duty of restoring the civil
service to the desired purity and efficiency rests upon the President,
and it is my purpose to do what is within my power to advance such
prudent and gradual measures of reform as will most surely and rapidly
bring about that radical change of system essential to make our
administrative methods satisfactory to a free and intelligent people.
By a proper exercise of authority it is in the power of the Executive
to do much to promote such a reform. But it can not be too clearly
understood that nothing adequate can be accomplished without
cooperation on the part of Congress and considerate and intelligent
support among the people. Reforms which challenge the generally
accepted theories of parties and demand changes in the methods of
Departments are not the work of a day. Their permanent foundations
must be laid in sound principles and in an experience which
demonstrates their wisdom and exposes the errors of their adversaries.
Every worthy officer desires to make his official action a gain and an
honor to his country; but the people themselves, far more than their
officers in public station, are interested in a pure, economical, and
vigorous administration.
By laws enacted in 1853 and 1855, and now in substance incorporated
in the Revised Statutes, the practice of arbitrary appointments to the
several subordinate grades in the great Departments was condemned, and
examinations as to capacity, to be conducted by departmental boards of
examiners, were provided for and made conditions of admission to
the public service. These statutes are a decision by Congress that
examinations of some sort as to attainments and capacity are essential
to the well-being of the public service. The important questions since
the enactment of these laws have been as to the character of these
examinations, and whether official favor and partisan influence or
common right and merit were to control the access to the examinations.
In practice these examinations have not always been open to worthy
persons generally who might wish to be examined. Official favoritism
and partisan influence, as a rule, appear to have designated those
who alone were permitted to go before the examining boards, subjecting
even the examiners to a pressure from the friends of the candidates
very difficult to resist. As a consequence the standard of admission
fell below that which the public interest demanded. It was also almost
inevitable that a system which provided for various separate boards of
examiners, with no common supervision or uniform method of procedure,
should result in confusion, inconsistency, and inadequate tests of
capacity, highly detrimental to the public interest. A further and
more radical change was obviously required.
In the annual message of December, 1870, my predecessor declared
that--