The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1842-08-16


It is, 10 me, alarming 10 observe the pro-
gress which this doctrine seems to be max
ing. was taught by my venerated father
more than forty years ago. to be jealous of
Executive power; and have had occasion,
within the last ten years, to see most signal
ly displayed, the usurpations which, In the
ardor of his democratic feeling, and the Wig
or of his strong mind, he saw would be per-
petrated unless the tendencies to the con-
centration Of power in the Executive,should
be arrested. The leading motive which
stimulated me in the great contest OF l84o,
was desire 10 check the alarming progress
of Executive usurpation; progress which
had been signalized by frequent exercise
OF the Veto power-an exercise Of II, the
more alarming because it was upon claim
offu!l co ordinate legislative power in the
President.
must be excused If feel somewhat
strongly on the subject ofthe late Veto, as
its exercise in this case, to say nothing of
the Vetoes of the Extra Session, is certainly
a most fragrant disregard of one of the
great principles of reform on which Presi'
dent T. Ter was elevated 10 power.
If there were any constitutional scruples
in the mind of the President in this case
should respect them. if they appeared TO rest
on even plausible ground. Or if the Pres
ident felt or protested 10 feel compelled 10
interpose his Veto upon the ground, that
the Act which he vetoed, was an encroach-
menl upon the constitutional rights of the
Executive Department, which he felt bound
to repel, ] might respect him for his patriot
! ism and firmness. But no such ground is
taken by him.
What are the groundsl Why. in the first
place, the President says that the Act ex
tending the revenue laws for month was
a violation of the compromise Act of 1888.
And why? Because ii carried forward be-
yond tue 3Oih June lS43, duties at rates a.
bove 90 per cent. And yet, if you will look
at the Veto Message, you will find him al
forwards expressly admitting that duties may
| be levied above 20 per cent. for the purpose
ofraising necessary revenue to carry on the
government. And besides he said IN his
annual Message last December, that in i'm
posing duties, there should be diScrimind'
ton with reference to the domestic policy
connected with our manufactures" This
| is the first Veto ever saw in which the
President stated an objection against Bill
as the ground of his Veto, and then answer
ed the objection himself.
The other ground of the Veto is. that the
Bill dlsregards the proVi~o in the land dis
tributiou Act of las, September. which pro-
viso suspended the distribution, when. and
so long as, duties should be levied over 20
per cent. Without admitting that it would
be good ground for veto, even if it did
render imperative, the proviso i'll question /;
DENY that il conhcted with that proviso.
! On the contrary ii was in perfect accordance
| with it. The proviso in the distribution
law suspended The distribution. While the
duties should, after the 30th Of June 1912
be above 20 per cent. And so did the Bill
which the President vetoed. 1t expressly
suspended and postponed" the distribution
till the first of August. 1t did not however
as the President asserts, ''direct' that DIS
tribulion should be made at that time
That was left 10 depend upon whether duties
above 81 per cent. should, in the meantime
| be ordered by law, 10 continue beyond the
the 3lst of July. If they should, and no re-
peal of the proviso of the distribution law
should take place, then the distribution
would not be made on the first Of August
unless i, might have Been rightfully made
on the lst of July, with duties in existence
on that day above 20 fer cent. So then,
whether distribution should take place on
the Isl of August or not, was TO depend on
intermediate Legislation, and was in no wise
determined by the vetoed Bill.
The truth was. that Bill simply carried
forward the then existing revenue laws TO
the LIST of August and carried the Provso to
the land distribution law, along with them;
thus leaving every thing on the lst of Au-
gust, where IL would have bern without the
vetoed Bill on the LIST of July. Such ]
know was the intention of The majority which
passed the Bill in the Ilouse; and such was,
manIfestly, the true construction OF the Act.
If is asked, in what condition il left the
proceeds Of the public lands, accrulng dur
ing the month of July, answer, that it left
them in the National Treasury, beyond the
power of distributions; and thus with regard
10 them, giving full effect to the susPending
proviso in the distribution.
But there is another view of this subject.
Although Congress did not in the vetoed bill
direct thai the distribution of the months
accumulation of proceeds up 10 the lst OF
July, should be made on the Isl OF August
yet | contend that it might have done so.
and not conflcted with the ProvIso oil the
distribution act. For maintain that tho
duties above 20 per cent. should have been
continued throug Oh and beyond the lst ofJu-
ly, the payment OF the preceding six months
accumulation ofthe proceeds Of the land
sales should nevertheless, have been made
TO the States OIL that day; because. upon the
most obvious construction Of the dIstribu
ton law, right to those proceeds was COM
pletely vested 10 the States as fast as they
accrued during the six months preceding
the LIST Of July. The continuance of duties
above 20 per cent. through and beyond tina,
day. could in no manner extend back. and
divest the States of rights. vested during the
preceding six months. The payment to the
States on the LIST of july would be the SIM |