Military Interference At Elections

In the House, May 8th, the House ill prohibiting military interference u elections being under consideration. Mr. Morgan (Bern., Ala,) advocated ts passage, arguing tliat the framers i the ('onstitution with a view to the preservation of the public liberty drew i broad distinction between the reguar aimy and militia, and that the lat;er should be eraployed to enforce the iws. Mr. Morgan reviewed the veto message and contended that the President ivas not a part of the legislatiye powr, as had been claimed. It was never ntended he should be, but that he had ;he right only to stay the passage of :he law if the judgment of the people, ;hrough their representatives, was bhua prevented from becoming a law )f the land, anless in some express form acceptable to the Executive. No right existed to destroy the government or put astoptoits wheels. When the Executive said that he could not unite with Cougress in their legislation, it was a duty they :wed their constituents, not the Kxecutive, to carry on the (overnment in a constitutional way, notwithstanding Congress disagreed with him, and to makethenecessary appropriations for the several departments of the government. But apart from this they had a right to say that the army should not be used at the polls, unless in pursuance of constitutional authority, and should never be employed to prevent free elections. TJie South had outlived the infliction of troops at the polls, which had been withdrawn in obedience to the sentiment of the North. The unification and consolidation of the South was owing to the use of the army at the elections more than to any other cause. In further review of the President's veto message Mr. Morgan said the people in their own time will rebuke this pretender. The arrogant and preposterous assertion that Congress could not employ a method of legislation to which he objected was ansvvered by the course of the President himself vvhile he was a meinber of the House, he having voted for legislation in appropriation bilis. His conscience at that time was not full grown. It was not sufticiently matured to grasp the great constitutional question. It was to be depreciated that the President so far forgot liimself as to charge improper motives to the majority in Congress, and this scandal ought to be rebtiked. Mr. Morgan left the President where his imputation belonged. drew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington would not have made such an imputation.but this was left for llutherford B. Hayes. By passing a bilí to prohibit military nterference at the polls as a separate measure the majority wished to remove tlie slightest ground of Executive objectton. ïhe veto message was in the i nature of a stump speech, a mere review of the Democratie party, to which the President imputed corrupt and revolutionary pnrposes. The veto message was a mere echo of the speech of the Senator from New York (Conklingj on a former occasion, some parts of which Mr. Morgan criticised. The Democrats were, he said, accused by the Senator of a plot or traitorous design in bringing forward a bilí to control the use of the army, but the people would not believe it, notwithstanding the oratorical force of the Senator. The President in echoing the same charge had not been so candid and direct. Mr. Morgan spoke for three hours and a half.