The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-08-17

the first of January, 1912 of S627, 557 80. Al
subsequent period OF this session, he urged Con
gress in special Message, the inability of the Trea
sury to meet the demands created against by appro
priatons which Congress had made the necessity Of
providing adequate means 10 sustain the Government
by an increase OF duties on imports and every other
means within their power. He also recommended the
repeal Of the Distribution act and pledge of the
land fund for the redemption of the public debt
Though less than half of the SIP 100000 loan autho
rized by the of lo4i had been taken, and though
Congress found ITSELF at early period of this
sion under the necessity OF authorizing issue OF
s5 OOO 600 of rr asury notes in addition to the loan
of 900 600 yet no revenue bill reported un-
tii the 81 day OF June, 1912 alter Congress had
been in session six months, and when the country
was looking anxiously for an adjournment. Con-
press had gone meanwhile To appropriate many
millions of dollars which the Government did not
possess and which il could obtain without the
agency of the Legislative department. The Revenue
bill was reported the 81 of June and taken up for
the irsl line 10 Committee ofthe Whole, the 9Th
of June
under the COMPROMISE of 1888, was to take effect
the Both of June and then the distribution under the
act of 1874 was 10 commence, provided the duties
were not raised beyond twenty per cent. On the TIN
OF June, the Committee OF Ways and Means, which
had reported The Revenue bill OF the 3d. brought In
what was called a Provisional bill the ostensbe OBJ
i, ct of wi ch to provide for temporary coec-
on of duties until time would be afforded for the pas
sage Of the general Revenue bill The necessity for
some such measure alleged to exist account Of
doubt whether duties could be collected after the
Both of June, without additional legislation. The
Revenue bill provided for general increase Of duties
beyond twenty per cent and It's passage would neces
sarly have enforced the suspendng clause of the Dis
lrlbulion act The provisional bill reported on the
7h of June contained reference TO this suspend
ing clause of the Distribution act On the 9Th OF
June, a second provisional bill was reported from the
Committee of Ways and Means, with the same gen
eral objects the first which had been reported only
two days before, and with povi repeating the
pending clause of the Distribution act The first pro-
,isional bill considered. The second was
passed by he House the 18th Of june went to the
Senate, returned with amendments which were con-
Cured IN on the 18th of June and was returned by
the Presid. with objections on the 29th of June.
These obi ections founded ON the deplorabe
dllion ofthe Treasury, and the expedency of all
herring, under the circumstances, TO the terms on
which distribution had been authorized Ivy the act of
lS4l. The Revenue bill did not pass until the 9Th of
August 1t returned With the Presidents obj &c
tons on the 9Th
These objections now before the committee.
They are substantially the same those which &C
companied he provisional bill only on the 10Th of
June The Revenue bill Contained clause mos: I'M
equvocaliy repeating the suspension of the Dlsribu-
ton act, which ts own passage would have enforced,
and thus II was IN effect the enactment of new dis
trbution la appended to the Revenue bill. Each
House deliberately refused to strike out this clause
and persisted in assocIatng in udcrous contrast two
measures the one an act to money for the sup
port of Government by the imp lston of taxes, the
other to disrlbu the land to the States.
The majority Of both Houses had proclaimed, with
the concurrence of the President in September, ls4
that distribution should only be made when the duties
were below twenty per cent. The majority of both
Houses had again and again proclaimed, in 1912, the
necessity of ralsng the duties above twenty per
and yet they insisted on distributing the land fund
whou, regard 10 the conditions they themselves had
recently proclaimed without regard to the situation
otlhe Treasury, and without regard to the burdens
which might be Imposed on the People. They might
have attempted to raise revenue from imports and TO
distribute The land fund IN separate bills Then each
measure would have rested on It's intrinsic merits.
But they persisted in connecting them in bill
The restriction in the Distribution act of 1871, was
designed to guard against increasing The burdens of
taxation to I'LL vacuum which might be occasloned by
distribution The legislation of 1912, designed to
that 1t may be filled by increased
alton There is probably precedent in The history of
any government for the union under such circum-
stances, of revenue and an appropriation bill, As
there was no necessity tor such union appa-
rent TO the public, we are at liberty to In er, that
it resulted from consciousness that one or both the
measures could not have separately commanded a
majority. The exigences of the National Treasury
supposed to furnish favorable opportunity for
Congress to extort terms which alone the Govern
ment should be supplied with revenue to meet their
own appropria ions 1t would have been proper,
under tue circumstances, for Congress TO annex a
charter for a bank, fiscal agent, fiscal cor
poration as a condition precedent TO a bill,
and to raise issue with the President, with their
constituents if such bill had not received the Exc
cutiye sanction.
1t great mistake suppose that there issue be-
tween the maj ,rity Of Congress and the President.
There is issue between this majority in 1S4
and in 1912. The President abdes by terms which
this majority prescribed for themselves and the
Treasury in lS4l, and they prefer no accusation
against him for adhering to their own position. He
might with more proprlety upbraid them for aban-
doDing It, The issue is between this majority and
the country. They who arraign the President for
obstructng the will of Congress should be well as
sured that Congress does not obsruct the will of the
States and the people it represent. Congress is nei
Their inalble nor irresponsible If this were ques-
ton which none felt any interest besides the Presi-
dent OF the United States and members of Congress,
there might be plausibity in the attempt to
narrow the issue to them But the subject of reve-
nue. is one IN which those who pay apt to feel
deep interest those who levy taxes Every cit
izen of the United States, moreover feels solicitude
and all that concerns it in the Government in the
fundamental principles on which it is based, in the
measures which characterize its Administration, in
ITS justice, ITS TAI h, and its fame and the judgment
of no impartial man be blended BIASED by the
effort to conceal the true points of this issue under
cover of apathy, political alteration between party
majority IN Congress and the President. The Presl-
dent has either assumed power which does belong
to his office, or he has abused power which does
not belong to 1t. 1t has not been denied that the
power IN question exists under the Constitution; in
deed 1t has been proposed to abolish il by amend
ment If 1t has been abused it was done either cor
ruPtly and wantonly or under of Executive
judgment. If there is evidence of the least corrup-
lion In the Presidents conduct, he should be mpeach
ed The power of impeachment has been confined
to the House of Representatives 1t is the duty,
therefore, of the ma orty who accuse the President
to arraign him uLder articles of impeachment before
the Senate, if they believe him to be guilty of any
impeachable offence. If he has neither assumed
power, nor abused it corruptly, then the issue dwn-
dies to mere question who is right as to measure
of policy If the undersigned were allowed by the
circumstances which compel him to omit many con-
sderatlons very proper to the subject, he would not
of ,itIrrf