The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-08-06
On tie Apportionmem Bill

HOUSE, OF REPRESENTATIVES,, July 3, lo42.
The question being the motion to refer 10 a De-
lect Committee the reasons given by the PRESIDENT
for aixing his signature to the bill for apporonng
Representatives among the several States
Mr.. CUSHING said that the letter of the Secretary
of State, and the exposition OF the PRESIDENTS rea-
sons which it communicated to the House, suggested
an important question relative to the func IONS oil the
Executive The question was whether by the Con-
sttuton of the United States the President was pro-
hibed from filing his reasons for signing bill alter
it had been passed by the two Houses of Congress
Does the Constitution give to the members OF the
House any right to explain their reasons for voting
for against bill' There express pro-
vision to this effect. The right existed by Inn
plication. Would it be a grievance to members
not to be permitted to make speeches? Certainly
nothing common among members OF the
House than complaints of being debarred the privilege
of speech, and of being silenced by the previous
question, and other motions which preclude debate
Why do they complain; They wish to act upon the
public mind by their speeches here, and they wish to
Justify their acts in the eyes of the world and of pos
terty. Wel,-has not the President as much right
to act on the public mind as they' And may it not be
just important to the President of the Uuited
States, that the grounds of his action particu-
lar measure shall be communicated to posterity and
the world, as 1t is important to members of Congress
But there still more material question in
yolved in this matter, and that was,what is the
ture Of the function performed by the President of
the United Sates' Is this legislative act, is it
executive act' 1t was in another fern, precisely
the same question that which the House had been
discussing the last week,-upon the message of the
President returning to the House the bill making
porary provision for continuing the present
laws Upon that, the inquiry was,-what is the nature
of the functions of the President, in the act of
fusing to sign bl9 Whether he signs bill with
exposition Of his reasons refuses to sign it with
Of hIa fhaQa hOth 40
two categorles Of the power and duty, devolv-
ed by the Constitution upon the President. There
fore the question must be stated in broader form
than before and it is What the precise nature of
the participation of the President in the enactment
OF law Is it Legislative or is it an executive
function?
Unquestionably it act of the Executive,
but it did not by any means follow that it was there
fore an executive not legislative act
Try the question in the first place one of verbal
criticism and definition. There is point the history
of bill, when the legislative nature of the opera
ton ceases, and the executive operation begins
What is the legislative operation The answer to
this must be- that it is everything that goes to make the
bill law. What is the executive operation? That
must be the execution of the law after it becomes
such. Suppose for instance that it should be APP
preparation. The execution of it, that is the expen
dture OF the money it appropriates, cannot COM
mence until after it becomes law whilst the sigma
ture is act performed in the process of converting
the bill into law and therefore cannot be the execu-
ton Of the law. Mr. G. held, therefore, that,
cordng to the strict and logical sense of the words,
all the proceedings BILL from its inception to its
consummation, were legislative acts.
He relied upon this conclusion, the more confident
ly for the that by the express letter of the
Constitution, no bill could become law without
passing into the hands of the President He must Of
necessity, participate in the enactment OF every law.
He might sign it, and it then becomes law, or he
might refuse neglect sign it, and it then become
law but in either case there must have been partlcpa-
ton of his. Besides which, these acts of the Presi-
dent provided for in that article of the Consttu
ton, which defines the power and the duty OF the Lee
gslature and they not referred to in that part OF
the Constitution, which defines the power and the du-
ty of the Executive. So that the participation Of the
President in the enactment of law, seems to be
considered by the Constitution itself legislative
dunction.
But, says the gentleman from Michigan, by the
Constitution C All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in Congress of the United States
which shall consist of Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives Art l. From which he infers that the
President cannot possess any legislative functions
To this it might be obvious to reply, that another
part of the Constitution says, "The executive power
shall be vested in President Of the United States OF
America. Art. g. Would the gentleman conclude
from this expression that executive power is
vested in the Senator But this point deserves more
complete analysis
The act Of the Senate is necessary to the compile
ton of most appointments it has to confirm nomi-
nations. The act of the Senate is necessary also to
the conclusion of treaties with foreign Governments
In these two particulars it participates in the execu-
tive functions of the President its functions there
fore are, in this respect, not purely legislative.
But the Senate has judicial functions also, for il
tries impeachments, in which acts professedly
court of Justice.
The House finds mpeachments, and in doing this
performs functions which purely Judicial; for an
impeachment is in sense law making legsla-
tive act. Suppose, for instance the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. Botts) should move an impeachment
!. of the President Mr. C. presumed that MIR. B.
would not consider this an impossible supposton.
MIR. Boris said that Mr.. c. was certainly excused
for his supposition 1t did violence to the truth
1t was not only supposeable but certain case
His mind was made up on that subject.
Well then, Mr.. c. continued, suppose the case of
an impeachment, 1t would be the commencement
of judicial, not legislative operation.
In other respects both Houses perform acts which
judicial rather than legislative. Each House
says the Constitution, shall be the Judge" of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of its mem
bers. Besides which each House may "p,uaish' it,
members for disorderly behavior. To judge ard tt
punish are judicial, not legislative acts
Now, since the two houses of Congress exercise
functions other than legislative functions executive
and functions judicial there be nothing strange
In supposng that the Constitution should give to the
President functions other than executive.
In the first place he frequently performs judcia
acts, for he has to pass final judgment upon and APP
prove or disapprove, the proceedings of courts mar
tial.
And SO in the present question 1t absolutely
necessary that bill, before it could become law
should undergo the action of the Executive. He
must approve or disapprove He must perform al
operation affirmative negative decide not to act
and the operation thus performed by the President
he Mr.. c., had been accustomed to consider a le
gislative operation.
But other gentlemen denied this, and number Of
them, in commenting on the expression of such al
idea by him. the other day, had magnied this little
point OF verbal criticism into matter Of grave
sation and argument.
Gentlemen had several times in the debate Of
last week, assumed that he, MIR. c., had spoken Of
the President as coordinate branch of the Legisa-