Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1836-02-11
WHOLE NO. 3O6

/, OF money for military purposes. If ho says
he does II upon Executive recomme ndation.
where is his voucher? The President is not
iae the British king whose ministers and
secretaries are in the House Of Commons and
who are authorised in certain cases, 10 ex-
press the opinions and wishes Of their sove-
reign. We have no kings servants: at least
We have none known 10 the Constltution.-
Congress can know the opinions of the Pres
ident only as he officially communicates them.
IL would be cnrions enquiry III either House,
when large appropriation is moved, if it
were necessary to ask whether the mover re-
presented the President, spoke his senti-
men's, or in other words, whether what he
proposed were in accordance with the views
Of the Executive? How could that be iudg-
ed Of? BY the party he belongs 10? Party 10
not unique enough for that. BY the airs he
gives himself? Many might assume airs if
thereby they could give themselves such i'm
portance IA to be esteemed authentic exposi-
tors OF the Executive will. Or is this will to.
be circulated in whispers? made known tn
meetings of party men? intimated through
the press? Or communicated in any other
form, which still leaves the Executive COM
petely irresponsible? So that while Execu-
tive purposes or wishes pervade the ranks Of
party friends, Influence their conduct and u
mite their efforts, the open, direct and uncen-
stitutional responsibility is wholly avoided.
Sir, this is not the Constitution of the United
States, nor can it be consistent with any con-
stltutlon which processes to maintain sc parute
departments in the Government.
Here, then, Sir, is abundant ground, in my
judgment, for the vote Of the Senate, and
here ! might rest it. But there is also ano-
.her ground. The Constitution declares that
no money shall be drawn from the Treasury
but IN consequence Of appropriations made by
law. What is meant by "appropridtions?"-
Does this language not mean that particular
sums shall be assigned, by law, to particular
objects? How far this pointing out and fix
ing the particular objects shall be carried, is
la question that cannot be settled by any pre-
else rule. But specific appropriations" that
is to say, the designation Of every object for
which money is voted, az far as such designa-
tion is practicable, has been thought to be a
most important republican principles. In
times past, popular parties have claimed great
merit from protesting to carry this doctrine
much farther, aud to adhere to il much more
strictly than their adversaries. Mr.. Jefferson.
especially, was great advocate for it, and
held it to be indispensable to a safe and econo-
mical administration and disbursement of the
public revenues.
But what have the friends and admirers of
Mr.. Jefferson to say to this appropriation?-
Where do they find, in this proposed grant Of
three millions, designation Of object, and par
ticuIar and specific application Of money!
Have they forgotten, all forgotten, and who'll
lily abandoned, even all pretonco for specific
appropriation? II not, how conld they sane
tion such vote as this? Let me recall it's
terms. They are, that "the sum Of three mil
lions of dollars be, and the same hereby is,
appropriated, ont of any money in the Treas
ury not otherwise appropriated, to be ex-
pended, in whole or in part, under the drec.
tion Of the President Of the United States, for
the military end naval services, including for
tifications and ordinance, and to increase she
navy; provided such expenditures shall be
rendered necessary for the defence Of the
Country, prior to the next meeting Of Con-
grcss."
In the first place it is to be observed, that
whether the money shall be used at all or not,
is made to depend on the discretion OF the
President. This is sufficiently liberal. 1t
carries confidence fur enough. But if there
had been no other objections, If the objects
ofthe appropriation had been sufficiently de-
scribed, so that the President, if he expended
the money at all, must have expended it for
nothing had been left to his discretion but
the question, whether en- emergency bad
arisen, 10 which the authority ought to be ex-
ercised, might not have felt bound to reject
the vote. There are some precedents which
might favor such a contingent provision,
though the practice is dangerous, and ought
not to be followed except in cuses Of clear
necessity.
But the insurmountaole objection tn the
proposed grant was, that it specified no OBJ
jects. 1t was as general rs language could
make it. 1t embraced every expenditure that
could be called either military or naval. 1t
was TO include Qualifications, ordnance, and
increase Of the navy" but it was not confined
to these. It embmcad the whole general
subject Of military service. Under the au-
thority Of such law, the President might re-
pair ships, build ships, buy ships, enlist sea
men, and do any thing and every thing else
touching the naval service, without restraint
or control.
He might repair such Notifications as he
saw Ct, and neglect the rest; arm such as hc
sew st, aud neglect the arming Of others; or
build new Notifications whenever he chose
But these unlimited powers over the forti6-
cations and the navy constitute, by no means,
the most dangerous part Of the proposed au-
thor,y; because, under that authority, his
power to raise and employ land forces was
equally absolute and uncontrolled. He might
levy troops, embody new army. call out the
militia in numbers 10 suit his own discretion,
and employ them as he saw 1T.
Now, sir, does our Legislation, under our
Constitution, furnish any precedent for all
this?
We make appropriations for the army. we
understand what we are doing, because Il 10
.rhe army" tina, is to say, the army establish
cd by law. We mase appropriations for the
navy: they, too. are for 1.-THE navy" ss provi-
,l-J for and established by law. We mako
,..,.,,,.,,. f.,r E,rtifc alinus hut we N m