Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1836-03-10

s'Toyeu, ahd all appropriations ior oeIehce
were indignantly abandoned with it. True,
I this was not avowed at the time, nay, il was
studiously disguised; for indeed It wonld not
do to uvow that the Executive insisted on
this discretionary power as the condition sine
qua non to the country, fer having any even
the ordinary appropriations for the works of
defence. Nor would ID do to avow that the
\ President himself desired discretion that,
in the then critical state Of things, woud
] make him the orbiter of peace and war be-
tween the two countries, believed as it then
! was and would be. that the desire of this dis
cretonary power was prompted solely by his
! hostile feeling and intentions towards France.
| Hence all that Parliamentary machinery was
got up and played off in n House of Repre-
sentaiives now gone by, (of which we have
! seen the evidence in their jonrnals,) to give
1 ont the appearance to the Public that the
! agreement Of the conferees was not reported
to the House, either for the want Of time be-
fore the House became defunct, or for the
want of n quorum to receive the report; and
for the further object, to have pretext for
! fastening upon the Senate the odium of hav-
| inp occasioned the delay which had OCCASION
! ed the loss Of the whole bill, containing all
| the ordinary as well as extraordinary appro-
! priations for the defence of the country.
! But what has all this to do with the real
question? The real question is, whether the
! appropriation as proposed was constitutional.
! That is the question on which we voted, and
| that is the vote which we are challenged to
vindicate. Its correctness or incorrectDess
must be tested by The Constitution, applied to
1 the appropriation as proposed, not To the ap-
4 preparation az IT might have been proposed,
/ or might have been modified. We stand or
fall as the Constitution shall determine the
| d. .,,I h... ,,t 70 hfl
constitutional: so do the gentlemen who voted
for the appropriation as proposed. They can
I derive no Justification from the possible mod
ifcations which might have been given, but
were not given, to the appropriation.
The Constitution ordalns that "no money
shall be drawn from the Treasury, but IN con-
, sequence of appropriations made by law"
!, Now, an appropriation may be either gen.
f eral or specific; and it is made question Of
Interpretation whether specific appropriations
r only are hereby intended. This is the inter-
: pretaton which the practice Of the Govern
: mt has put upon this clause, and il is found
$ ed upon reasoning which appears to me con
r elusive in favor Of the practice; the reasoning
IS alluded to | will advert to hereafter. A
# present only say that 1t is not necessary to
: decide this question OF Interpretation ~ orde'
e to decide upon the constitutional character
= OI tiItC "PP'oP''o'N'' ~ ~'''~'
j goes beyond appropriation even the most gen.
e eral, which implies some object or objects al
ready defined aud established by law tor the
? expenditure. But this appropriation gave not
only discretionary power over the money, but
power to originate and establish the objects
OF expenditure, and objects which 1t Is only
, competent for the Legislature to originate
and establish. In this its distinguishing fea-
/ ture, making its distinctive character, this
f three million appropriation has no precedent
= in our history. none that has semblance OF
|, analogy to it, not one. Ten million appro-
= priation for diplomatic intercourse, and the
: two million for the same object, so vaunted
|, by some gentlemen as precedents in point,
were not even general appropriations; for,
: though general in appearance on the bill, yet
: coupled with the proceedings had between
5 the Executive and the Senate, but for public
reasons had in secret, they became in fact
9 specific appropriations, as specific as IN the
r nature of things they could be made. This
f has been most clearly and happily demonstra-
f ted by the honorable gentleman from Tenncs-
= see, {Mr. White) who voted with US against
: this appropriation.
Y But, waving this, and admitting for the
= present these appropriations to have peen
n general, still the appropriation does not 60
2 beyond appropriation. II is for expenditure
d OH the diplomatic intercourse, which the Con
1 stitution itself confides to the Executive De-
= partment. It conveys neither expressly nor
e by Implication any power not belonging to
I the Executive Department.and inherent there
8 in; nor indeed any such power; it simply gives
: him authority to expend the money upon a
f subject confded to him by the Constitution,
{ namely, the diplomatic intercourse. SO that,
e had these appropriations been general, in
s stead Of being specific. as they IN fact were'
: they would be no prccedents for this appro-
t priation. -.
y But suppose this three million nppropria-
r ton had not gone beyond appropriation mere
i ly-had not given to the Executive powers
d which the Constitution gives to the Congress,
s and which can only be exercised by Con-
= gress, but was simply u general appropriation
n of money to be expended on objects already
i established by law, would the appropriation
! for being general therefore be unconstitution-
x al? This depends, as said, upon the inter.
,; pretation of that clause Of the Constitution
= which says that mo money shall be drawr
If from the Treasury, but in consequence Of ap
r, preparations made by law" The interpreta'
,f ton given to it by the practice of the Govern
Il mept have already referred to. think tlls
Is the true Interpretation, ond necessary to fnl'
g fl the intention Of the Constitution. For why
3, was this provision inserted in the Constnu-
,r ton? Because the theory Of the Constitution
supposes the Congress IL to raise oil the funds
q 10 he used for the Government; to prescribe
" ALI the objects on which these funds are TO be
Is pxpended and TO control the expenditure on
v. ALL md because, to this control, this provision
;. was necessary. The Congress Is made the
is trustee of the people for these several purpc'
10 ses. The Con .,tntion expressly ordains tha