The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-11-06
FOR THE MADlSoNIAN.

FOR THE MADlsoNIAN.
A KENTUCKIAN vs.. THE VETO POWER.
few weeks ago the editors of the National Intel
gencer announced their determination not to publish
any anonymous communications relating to the recent
differences in the Wing party-unless the opinions
expressed in them should coincide with their own.
The proprietors of paper certainly have right to
admit or reject such communications as thev please
without assigning any for their determination
Some respect, however, is due to consistency; and,
except from virulent political opponents, we have
rightto expect some little tolerance and liberality-
The course of the lntelgencer shows merely deter
mnatlon to exclude from its columns any thing which
may tend 10 vindicate the Of President Tyler
on the Bank question, or justify him in the eyes of
the moderate portion Of the Wing party. 1t has SO
far acted towards him the part of viruent political
opponent: fomenter of prejudice, and not peace
maker.
In the Ineligencer of Tuesday last there is COM
muncaton on the subject of the Veto power, signed
Kenuckian, which the editors say came to them by
mail from Kentucky, "whout any indications as to
the author, not merely anonymous but without any
clue to the authors name though the editors have no
hesitation in pronouncing him lawyer by profession,
and practical as well as an intelligent man
We have suspicion that the writer of this
communication is no less parsonage than the great
Jonas of the unfortunate Wing party, who is probably
not altogether easy in conscience at having so publicly
suggested skulking course to the President.
We shall state, in the writer's own words the pro-
position which it is his object to demonstrate nath-
ematicaly:
he iniu he
with his objections if he does not approve it, is either
conditionally imperative or it conveys merely dis
cretonary power.
There but these two instructions (qu. construc-
tions); there is no intermediate third one the
ercse of the power at all is discretionary it is not
In every case where he dsapproves he must apply the
Veto, as in many cases he may in his discretion sign
law even though he does not approve it,"
The writer then proceeds by the reductio ad ab-
surdu, to show that the injunction upon the Presi-
dent to return bill which he approves cannot be i'm
perative: that he may honestly sign BILL which he
disapproves, and ortori might honestly suffer such
q bill to become law by default.
All this is very logical and concusive-quite Eucli-
dian; and President Tyler is apparently cornered or
"headed," and ready for impaing on the remaining
horn Of the mathematical dilemma
But surely it does not follow, because the President
is not bound in every to return bill which he
dsapproves, that there not cases in which he
is bound, morally and constutionaly to return bill
which he disapproves. The good of the People
the only object in view in entrusting him with the
Veto power at all. There are therefore some in
which the JUNCTION to return the bill with objections
must be considered as imperative; and in which as
"a honest man, the President has discretion left
him in which he could not honestly sign bill, and if
he suffered it to become law by default would betray
a cowardly fear of consequence to himself person.
ally.
The writer himself does not assert tina: in oil cases
but only in many cases-the President "mdy in his
discretion sign law Ia bill though he does not
approve it," By Inference therefore he himself admits
that there may he some cases in which he may not
sign bill if he disapproves of it. Now the Bank
bills were such cases. in the opinion Of the President
and the decision with him. until it can be incon-
travertbly shown that they were not.
They were evidently not Of that class of bills which
nigh, be approved or disapproved without creating