Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1835-04-02
On this amendment, the following remarks

SAINT with the proceedings of Congress.
\ !. II was unparliamentary, irregular, un.
usual and against order. 1t was not in its
nature, an amendment to the amendments o
the Senate. The items from the House had
been agreed to, and were passed as were
those ot the Senate. ! his was a totally new
provision, new subject matter in new and
distinct section, with different objects.
An amendment must relate to, and partako
ofthe thing to be amended. 1t must restrain
enlarge or modify the principal subject. The
new section added by the House, did neither
1t was an independent and incoherent sub
Ject. They might as well have added new
bill, or all the bills Of the session. In prin-
ciple, this would have been the same.
The Senate might have rejected the pro-
position, on the ground of its manifest viola
,lon OF parliamentary usage. But it was re-
jected on higher grounds, as is apparent from
the discussion which took place.
2. The proposition of the House was in
direct repugnance to the principle and the
practice OF SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS FOR
SPECIFIC oBJECTs-a practice always preva-
lent, but especially insisted OH by MIR. Jetfer-
son, and rigidy pursued since his day. 1t
must be left to those who call themselves
DEMoCRATs OF THE JEFFERSON SCHOOL, to
account for their consistency in voting for it,
in the House.
3. 1t invested the President with dictato-
rial powers to the extent of the appropriation.
The three millions were to be expended in
whole or in part, under the direction Of the
President, for the military and naval service,
including Fortlfcations, ordnance, and III
crease Of the nary-providcd such expend-
ture should be rendered necessary for the
defence Of the country, prior to the next
meeting of Congress. lie was to Judge of
the necessity-he was to choose the objects.
lie was even to increase the navy-and was
bound to no limit as to the FortIfcations.-
lie was invested with the whole power, and
the whole discretion. Its terms ure broad
enough for Roman dictatorship.
q. 1t was therefore, a surrender TO him OF
the power Of Congress to raise arrnies-to
provide navy, &c. lie might have so used
it as to plunge the nation, into Wdr, without
Congress, in whom the power of war rests by
the Constitution, being able to express its de-
cision upon the subject.
5. The President had not asked for it, or
suggested its propriety. II he thought il
necessary, it was his constitutional duty SO t.
inform Congress.
He had not done so. He did not think il
necessary, or he would have officially inform
ed Congress. And it is not to be credited
that ne had privately, secretly, suggested j,
to and urged it upon his friends. This would
be imputirg to HIM base shrinking from his
responsibility, a mean evasion of his duty
and charging those who would thus be ad-
vised and dictated to, with contemplate
scrvility, unworthy their stations as Repre-
sentatives of the people.
| 1t could not be necessary, for the safety Of
the country. War would not be declared by
France. She had no claim against US. 1t
could not be declared by us, unless it was
done by Congress. The President has no
constitutional power to declare it. There
could be no war, before the meeting of Con-
gress. If dangers threatened, sufficient in
the opinion of the President to require us to
prepare for 1t, he had the power and it was
his duty to convene Congress. There would
then be no necessity for the appropriation, in
this unguarded and unlimited form.
! Ii was a most unusual and extraordinary
time to present such proposition, late in the
last night of the session, with no opportunity
to consider and debate it. Was this the OBJ
jcc,? Was it intended hastily, and in the
pressure of business, to hurry through pro-
position of this character? Or was 1t by pre-
senting it then, when they knew it must be
rejected, to endcavor to find ground c: accu-
sation against the Senate?
When these circumstances are considered,
it is not surprising that this grant OF three
millions, was refused by the Senate. 1t would
have been recreant to its character and duty,
if il had agreed to it. 1t refused it by large
VOTE But this refusal did not affect any 9TH
c part otthe Bill, that might have passed, as
the two Houses had agreed to all tho items
OF appropriation.
Why did it not pass?
The disagreement of the Senate was sent
to the House about nine o'clock, or near that
hour. The Senate, as appears by the pub
llshed Journals, thea went into session on
Executive business. The House insisted on
this new proposition, and returned the bill,
but did not ask conference as was usual in
such cases Of disagreement, and as accord
ing to our recollection, the Senate had on
that same evening, done in another case
where they had made an amendment to the
general appropriation bill. Why was not this
done by the House? Let the reason be ex-
planned. Was it to force the Senate? To
compel it against its Judgment, to accept this
proposition, or let the Bill be lost? We do
not feel at liberty to suppose that IT was IN
tended to lay foundation for slandering its
motives.
The Senate adhered, and then the House
asked for a committee ot'conterenee, which was
promptly granted by the Senate, and COM
lnlttee appointed.
The conference took place, and in very
short time, the two committees agreed to
strike out the unlimited appropriation OF three
millions, at Executive discretion, and to sub
stitute the following:
Mr.. Webster reported,
That all after the word "enacted" in the
section inserted by the House of Representa-
tives, be struck out, and the following insert
cd. viz: