Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-03-30

yariabiy been contradictory, even la this thei d
@urre, your inaugural Address. Sir, you, OF
any other man ascertain any thing Ineligible, any
thing tangible or positive from that document il
may mean any thing, every thing, nothing. What
doctrine is there but may find some sanction in its
vague generaltes But will particuarize. Doyou
acknowledge and defend the force of precedent in the
routine and practical Administration of the Govern.
ment2 You do, for You say 81 believe with MIR.
Madison that repeated recogntons under varied cir
cumstances, acts Of the egsatiuc cIecutire and ju
dcial branches of the Government accompanied by in
dcaons IN different modes of the Of the
general will OF the nation, afording the President
authority for has considering such disputed prints
settled" So much for your attachment 10 precedent
a safe rule whereby the President should be guided
But do you not also repudiac and pie precedent
under foot You do: for, while you declare that
"fepeated recogntions ought to afford the Pre-
sident sufficient authority for considering such
points settled, you do, at the time, pro-
claim your determination TO depart from precedent-
to reyolutionss the Government-to introduce limo.
vatlon by setting ut defiance the practices and usa-
ces under all other Presidents, and shrinking from the
performance of an Imperative duty, by refusing to
commend such measures of finance every Chief Ma
gst rate, from Washington down, has invariably re-
commended Thus, then, your convenience and caprice,
after all, TO be the "law and the ordinance. Pre-
eedents and "repeaed rccognitions are very good
things when they do not clash with the opinions of
W. H. Harison but, if they do clash, why, then, they
are not worth straw; and although power may have
been repeatedly exercised and sanctioned by all yeur
PREDECESSORS and by the sgcncral 1rH Of tho nation,
such recognition must be superseded by your more
enlightened views.-Do you deny the doctrine, that
tho President is part Of the law-making power? You
do: for you says'l cannot conceive that BY tar
construction, any either OF its provisions would be
found TO constitute the President part of the egsa-
tive power" But do you not also virtually acknow-
ledge that the President Is part Of the law-nakng
power; You do; for, you say in another pace-"lhe
Senate in relation TO Revenue bills, have the right to
suf. Inns Jup 'Frr
power given him to return them to the House OF Re-
representatives. with his objections. Now, the power
TO amend must necessarily partake of tfg'Sidttre
character But | deny that the Constitution en-
g powers the President "to amend or To "propose
, amendments to the bills passed by Congress. lie
: may approve or reject, but he cannot propose an
5 amendment The word ''amendment' is not even to
be fou nd in that clause Of the Constitution which con-
ers the power. You seem to make no distinction
between the power of the President and that Of the Sc
4 nate rs to Revenue bills but the distinction is OBJ
vous and important The Senate may Proposc amend
menis but the President must return the bill with his
e '0bjedi0ns, and not with proposition "to amend
Two thirds of the lower House control and over
a rule the objections of the President: whereas the
amendments proposed by the Senate cannot be thus
troed or overruled. Your definition, then, is that Of
4 latitudnarIan; it is erroneous it is dangerous and
absurd it is usurpaton il IS contrary to the Con-
stitution, and above ALL it is utterly at with your
other doctrine that the President IS Part ofe lar
J making pOner. But your principle is novel and
e position with Constitution:
/ CONSTITUTION. HARRISON.
Article s Sec All bills FOR The Senate. in relation
= raising hall bills, have the right
the House Of Representatives. propose amendments, ami has
shall EIrcrc hy the
concur with amendments a on Inn 10 rciIrn them 10 the House
: Sc. ii. Every Lil which shalt iec,,ons.
have passed the House Of Rep
d rcseniatiyes and The Senate
i. shall, before il become law, be
/, presented 10 The President of the
: y fhc approve, he shall sign
/, IN which shall have originated
" who shall the objections
y large, aud proceed 10 reconsider
!, II, &c.
But other BEAUTIES demand our attention. Do
e you proclaim the stability of the Constitution and
cognze in il barrier against the dcspo,ism Of
d accidental majority You do; for you say, "The
jorty Of citizens, the contrary, possess sove
a regnty with amount of power precisely equal 10
\ that which has been granted 10 them by the powers Of
5 the national compact, and nothing hyond But do
YOU not also declare the Constitution tickle and I'M
!. stable and susceptible of being vcered and moved
about like weatlercock You do for you say, 'sThe
; broad foundation upon which Constitution rests,
being the people-a breath of their having made-ns
$ breath can unmake, change, or modify II, NC
This indeed strange doctrincc In the one case you
declare that the majority of our citizens 20 be-
e yoad the Constitution; in the other, you do not even
require majority of the People to change or destroy
il, but deem 'a BREATH Of theirs sufficient Tor that
purpose pr@ciarum interpreter jnris! auciOrcm
dnguatis c0rrecorem atqne emendatorcm nostrG CT
riiatis. Now, it is nst as true that "a breath can
unmake the Constitution that you are "Jefferso-
sonian Democrat. 1t requires three: toarths of the
States change modify that instrument, and
not "a mere puff of wind you rcProve and
[ condemn the Veto power as improper and anti
Republican, You do; for, You tell us that "lhe
negative upon the acts of the legislative, by the
Executive authority and that IN the hands oil one
indriduai would 10 be an lncOngruy IN our sys-
tenn And again: at is prcposterous TO suppose that
thought could for moment have been entertained,
that the President placed at The Capitol IN the centre
Of the country could better understand the wants ana
wishes Of the people than their own immediate Repre-
, senatives' &c. But do you not also advocate and
sneak of the Veto, as sautary and useful provision
You do: for YOU say, "lke some others OF n similar
character however, appears to he hshi erped,ent
Do you acknowledge the capabty OF the States 10 re-
SYST Federal encroachmenp You do; for you say, Gas
far as any open warfare may have gone, the State a-
thorilies have amply maintained their rights But do
you not also proclaim the most Federal Of all DOCTRINES
and sanction and regard as harmless every previous
Z usurpation on the part of the General Government
the Sedition Law" included, You do; Tor, you
boldly and ,rumphanty declare, that :" the General
Government has seized upon NONE of the reserved
rights of the States. DO you discourage or e1Postu-
a,c with The Aboonists: GU do, indirectly, or al
least so far as the Aboonsts of Grccc are concerned
for you saw was indeed to the ambition OF the lead
ing States of Greece 10 control the domestic concerns
of the others that the destruction Of that celebrated
concderacy and subsequently Of all It's members IS
mainly to be attributed. But do you not also rncour-
age and powerfully assist the Abotionlss by allowing
them to inundate the South with what you call their
adrtsory but which every body knows to be infamous
and ,ncendiary. publications You do, for you say,
He may indeed offer to the citizens Of other States
his advice az to their management, and the FORM
| WHICH IT is RENDERED is LEFT TO HIS
OWN DISCRETION AND SENSE or pkoPkIE-
Try DO YOU propose cnrtail the power of the E1-
ecutiye You do for you propose TO renqush the e1-
ercse of powers which are unqnestionably legitimate
and CONSTITUTIONAL and which our best and wlsest rres
dents have successfully exercised. But do you not