Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1842-08-22
Veto No. Four.


We give it and we are not sure that we urc not
bound to give Thy our mot long ours, we tancy,)
commission publishers of the laws of the realm.
John Tyler seems TO be the Sovereign OF this ma
tion-the only responsible maker-lhe Auto e
crnt Of all North America, save such portions us
belong to his royal brother of Russia, aud his
lovely cousin (she uses neither fingers nor Woes
We understand thought of England " told you
SO and so, in my former messages" says the Pre-
sident in effect TO Congress-"b but you have not
obeyed, and here is the veto pass your law in lie
fance of my will, if you can" That is the sum
ofthe veto message there nre no constitutional
scrupes-no obstacles but his uietOs Of erpediency.
And this, too is rerenue biV-ubo which the
trainers OF the constitution had so much decacy
as to prohibit any thing but the House from OIL
ginang. 1t lies dead, becanse not framed in
accordance with the views of one man . the hopes
of the people are crushed-teir interests are
Frustrated, tho treasury cries in vain for revenue
and The credit of the nation oers--because ONE
MAN, " dressed in a little brief authority, a." cannot
yield single point to the representatives of the
people But the woe is mol universal: England
will rejoice, aye, and Americans, blinded by the
nsts oflUcofOcoisn and bound like slaves in par-
ty bonds, will rejoice. And this is-modern de-
mocrdCy
But turn to the reasons for the veto. They are
first, that the hill unites Two SUBJECTS to VIII the
Tariff and Distribution. This is not fair repre-
senalion. The Two subjects were in fact con-
i'esisa in The Land bill at the extra session, aud
connected us he well knows, asainst the wishes oi
tha nf, IA il, L.,
what does this bill propose Nothing but to
separate The measures Ivy repeating The obnoxious
clause in The Land Act. This first objection of
the President consider even dishonest. The
hill relating drawback and duties passed at the
extra session after the land BILL contained proviso
Of tie same character as this, to which lie now
objects and he signed that bill, Sept II, ls4I.
Reason No. 9, is that the Treasury is in want
of money. Indeed that is one of the strongest
reasons why he should have signed that bill, con-
tanning as it does 10 constitutional objections
Want money why this bill offered him 81 mil
ons-but because it did not offer $3.50 900 more,
[lhe present amount of the land fund.- he, for
soolh, would not have dollar
Reason No. 3, is ditto to No. /, accompanied
with all argument TO prove that the tariff will he
more stable, il the public lands are put into the
treasury. Why ?-oh, the revenue by duties is
liable TO change. This is marvellous: and does
not the revenue Il ON lands change? Certainly,
aud the tables show that it changes more sudden
ly and with an infinitely wider range than revenue
from imports under var, ing tariffs The
lands have run from half million 10 25 millions
year change which has never occurred in time
of peace, and never can occur, in revenue from
imporIs-we mean, Of course, SO long as the sys-
tom of import duties is in force. There is
son, too, why the land fund changes strangely,
aud it is reason why the land fund ought not to
90 into the treasury. The President controls the
land sales, selling them when he pleases, and
susrending sales when he pleuses. Wha, stabih
ty will there he TO Protection, WREN one man - of
such wonderful stability OF principle and cOnsis-
tency of conduct as President Tyler--can reduce
the tariff or raise it, by selling lands or forbidding
their sale? We think the President has already
tao much power for mischief, without adding the
privilege of controlling the whole question OF pro-
lection, through his power over the Public Lands.
Were we to add II fourth reason 10 the Vetu
Message, it would be this" John Tyler, iopn't
sign this BILL nor any other, until Congress yields
to my tUW" That, we believe, is The truth and
then comes The questions for the People-Shall
Congress yield its independence aud It's constitu-
iiona rights? Shall we have un Autocrat-elec.
tive to be re,-but yet an Autocract, whose will
must be the supreme law, or there be no law at
all?
Yes, says locofocoism; yes, Congress ought to
yield Congress knew John Tyler would veto
that bill, and they 10 he blamed for not fixing
it just as he " ishrd And what to lie yield
ed? The constitutional rights oftl,e House, first
its independence, second and the rights of The
States their constitutional, legal and moral rgh
to The public lands-n the third place. What was
the alternative? If they do not yield, John Tyler
will sacrifice Domestic Industry, and The locoioco
party will sustain him No-Congress was RICH,
in not yielding it was right in insisting upon car
rying out the wiH of The people, as expressed by G
tremendous majority in 1910 in favor of Tariff
and the Land Bill; i, was right, in honestly re-
deeming its pledges TO the counlry-and upon
John Tyler and the ocofocos in Congress rest the
heavy responsibility for defeating this bill. The,
defeated the Tariff their own confession, ratht,
than give the Staies their oton money!