Piney Woods planter and Amite union literary reflector. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1838-1838, 1838-09-15

mas mlllon 10 keep, beng forbidden
to lend dollar of it. Which will be
the most courted, and rave the most
influence among his neighbors2 The
answer is too obvious to need sugges-
ton. 1t is thus with the Executive.
If you would curtail his influence in the
most effectual manner, require him ''r
fexibly to keep the public money for
public purposes. lfyou would extend
his influence in manner the most a.
farming, authorize him to lend the pub
lie money, or cause it to be lent, by
depositing it in banks, or otherwise.
The idea that the actual custody of
the public money by public officers
appointed under the authority of Con-
gress would place it more under the
control Of the President than it has
heretofore been, is wholly deceptive
and fallacious.
His power over it would not be at
all increased by this measure. The
President could not, under the old or
proposed system. draw from the Trea-
sury single dollar, not even for the
payment of his own salary. That OPP
Grafton is effected by the warrant of
the Secretary of the Sreasury, upon
the Treasurer's check or order upon
bank or other depository. 1t is through
these means that the President, and
every other executive officer receives
even his salary.
If the Treasurer had the actual Gus
tody Of the public money, instead OF
keeping it in banks, the President
would be obliged still to get warrant
from, the Secretary of the Treasury be-
fore he could receive bis salary. 1t is
said if the Treasurer had the actual
custody Of the money, the President
might compel him to put it in his pos
session by the exercise Of his authority
and power over an official dependant.
But is itnot just as easy, by the exer-
else of the same authority and power,
to compel the Treasurer to draw a
check on a bank2 And could not the
President or his instrument obtain the
money from bank on such check
just as easy as he could wrest it from
the Treasurer's actual possession?-l
Would 1T not, indeed, be little easter
to compel the Treasurer to dram check.
than to count put large sun, Of money?
AS for the banks, they never have clai'-
med the right to dispute the Treasu-
rer's check, their duty being merely
to pay it. When there was thirty or
forty millions Of dollars in the Treasu-
ry, there was nothing in the law, or in
the structure Of the system, to prevent
the executive officers from checking
every dollar of it out Of the banks, if
inclined to apply it to improper objects.
Indeed, until 1929, there was no prac-
teal restraint upon the Treasurer
whatsoever; the sole authority upon
which the banks paid out the public
money, was his indiv.d dual check; and
the restraint then imposed in requiring
that the warrant of the Secretary Of
the Treasury should accompany the
Treasurer's check, was one Of Execu.
tive regulation, and not Of Congression-
al legislation. The dangers conjured
up from this source are therefore alto
gether imaginary.
The union of the purse and tho sword,
so much deprecated by our English
ancestors, was altogether a different
matter. BY them the power to raise
an army was called ''the sword" and
the power to levy and collect taxes to
support it was called "the purse" The
English Constitution conceded to the
Executive the power to raise an army,
or the power of'the sword" but reser-
we'd to Parliament the power to lay
taxes to support it, or the power of"the
purse" 1t was the attempts Of Cearles
the First to raise taxes for the support
of his army without the consent Of par
thereby uniting ''the purse and
the sword" which produced bloody
revolution and brought him to the block.
Our Constitution comedies to the
Executive neither Of these overs. He
can neither raise an army, nor collect
taxes to support it, without the con-
sent of Congress. In their hands are
both ''the purse and the sword" and
the Executive is but an instrument to
carry their determination into effect.
He wields neither the purse nor the
sword otherwise than as The subordin-
ate of the legislative power.
Hence it @will be perceived that the
Union of "the purse and the sword" is
a very different thing from the custody u