Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1842-08-25

1 a brief dissertation upon the painful sen
satons which am indiridnai invested witt
the veto power must ieei IN exercising !
upon important acts Of the Legislature
The paragraph is worded with eSiFem'
caution, and with obvious intent to ayoi'
the assertion, made in such broad and IN
qualified terms in the letter read al the
| Philadelphia Independence day.dInnerpar
| ", that Congress can enact no hir with
out the concurrence of the Executive.
| There is IN this paper a studlous eitor
to save any iadiridudt trum the lmputa
ton OF asserting the unqualified lndepen
dence Of the Executive upon the Legs
tire, and the impotence of Congress tC
enact any law without him. That asser
ton, made in so explicit and unqualified
terms in the Philadelphia letter, is here
virtually disclaincd and disavowed. The
exercise Of some independence OF judg-
meni, in regard 10 all acts of legislation
by any individual invested with the veto
power, is here curtaled and narrowed
down to the mere privilege Of not yield
ing his well-considered, most deeply fix.
ed, and repeatedly declared opinions on
matters of great public cnncernment, to
those of coordinate department, with
out requesting that department seriously
10 re-examine the subject Of their differ
ence. The Coordinate department 10
the Legislature is no longer the co ordln.
ate branch Of the Legislature. The pow
er Of Congress TO enact law without the
cooperation OF any individual Executive
is conceded, not merely by unavoidable
inference, for the closing paragraph OF
the message, recurring again to the same
troublesome Renaissance, observes that,
after all, the effect OF what he does is sub,
stantialy 10 call on Congress to reconSid-
or the subject. II, on such re considera-
ton, a majority Of two thirds Of both
Houses should be in favor of this mea-
sure, il will become law Notwithstanding
bis objections. The truism Of this re-
mark may perhaps be accounted for by
the surmise that it was new discovery,
made since the writing of the Philadelphia
dinner-party letter and the modest pre-
that the Executive can commit no error
Of opinion, unless thirds of both
branches Of the Legislature are in conflict
with him, is tempered by the amiable as
surance that in that event he will cheer.
fully acquiesce in a result; which woulG
be precisely the same whether he should
acquiesce in it or not. The aptitude of
this Hypothetical position may be estlma
ted by the calculation of the chances that
the contingency which j, supposes is with
in the verge Of possibility.
The reasons assigned by the President
for his objections to this bill are further
preceded by narrative of his antecedent
opinions and communications on the sub.
ject Of distributing the proceeds of the
sales of the public lands. He admits
that at the opening Of the extra session he
recommended such distribution, but he
AYERS that this recommendation was ex-
pressly coupled with the condition that the
duties on imports should not exceed the
rate Of 90 per cent. provided by the COM
promise act of 1898.
Who could imagine that, after this most
emphatic coupling Of the revenue from du-
ties of impost with revenue from the pro-
ceeds OF the sales Of the public lands, the
first aud paramount objection OF the Pre-
sldent TO this bill should be that it unites
two subjects, which, so far from having
any affinity to one another, are wholly
incongruous in their charncter-which
two subjects are identicaly the same
with those which he had coupled together
in his recommendation to Congress at the
extra session If there was no affinity
between the parties, why did he Join them
together If the union was illegitimate
who was tho administering priest of the
uRhallowed rights +? 1t is objected to this
bill that il is both revenue and an APP
preparation bill. What then Is not
the act Of September 4, l64l, approved
and signed by the President himself, both
revenue and an appropriation bill .
Does it not enact that, in the event Of an
nsuficlency Of impost duties not exceed
ing twenty per cent. ad valorem, to de-
fray the current expenses OF the Govern
ment, the proceeds of the sales of the pub
lie lands shall be levied as part of the
same revenue, and appropriated 20 the
same purposes? The appropriation Of
the proceeds of the sales Of the public
lands to defray the ordinary expenditures
of the Government is believed to be a
system of fiscal management unwisc, inn
polite, improvi1ent, and unjust; and ii
is precisely for that reason that the bill
now before the House provides that they
shall moi be so appropriated.
The public lands are the noble and IN
appreciable inheritance of the whole ma
ton. The sale of them to individuals is
not tax upon the purchaser, but an ex-
change of equivalents scarcely more bur-
densome to the grantee than # he should
receive it as gratuitous donation. To OPP
propriate the proceeds Of the sales to de-
fray the ordinary expenses of the Gov
eminent is to waste aud DESTROY the pro-
perty. This property is held by Con-
aress in trust. Mr.. Tyler speaks Of the
distribution as if it was giving array the
property. 1t is precisely tho reverse
1t is restoring ii to the owner. Toappro-
pirate the proceeds to delray the current
expenditures is TO give it up to dilaplda-
ton and waste. 1t is in political econo'