The daily union., 1846-08-26
CoNGREssIoNAL.
SPEECH OF Mr.. ). M. CLAYTON,

h, The Senate, August 8, l646--on the message OF
the President Of the United States, returning with
his objections the bill providing Indemnity Tor
French spoiauons prior to 1900.
The message having been read,
Mr.. J. M. CLAYTON then rose, and thus ad-
dressed the Senate:
The presidential veto which has now been read
may challenge the annals Of this government for a
parallel Il is the first instance in the history Of this
republic in which the Executive has so far extended
the executive power as to defy and oyerrue the sol
emn and deliberate opinion Of both branches Of
Congress- in the case Of mere priraie claim, Tin
yolying no question OF constitutional law "upon
the ground Of its inexpediency alone"
IL is the first instance in which the executive veto
was ever extended TO what may be properly called
a mere private bill, on any ground whatever. Con-
gress has never before been denied ths right TO pay
what il deemed TO be Just debt TO any Of our cti-
Zens. The President of the United States, after
acknowledging his want Of accurate or minute In
formation a subject involving no earthly consider
alton but claim for money due from the
American government TO American citizens, and de-
liberately decided by an American Congress-after
plainly eonfessing that he had not EXTENDED his
examination Of the subject into its minute details"
has yenturea the opinion that the claims arc Of a
doubtful character" and the bill for their relief "a
questionable MEASURE" and then, sfter assigning
such for his action, has reversed the dec-
sion Of Congress, thus rendering any further appeal
by the claimants to the justice Of the country dur
ing his whole administration, absolutely hopeless
IL opens a new chapter in the history OF execu
tive power. Il is the beginning Of new volume in
the history Of executive encroachment. We may
all remember with what indignation the friends OF
General Jackson, during the early part Of his exeeu-
tive career denied the unfounded rumor that he had
put his veto upon private bill that is, on a mere
claim acknowledged by Congress as due from this
government to private citizen.
Sir, every must readily see, that If the repre-
sentatiyes Of the people thus be deprived OF the
power To administer justice To American citizens the
Executive department may resolve itself into one OF
the grossest tyranny. The claim OF every American
ON his own government must depend upon the ar
bitrary decision Of one man, from whom no apreal
be had, that Is not nominal instead Of real in It's
character.
Mr.. President, do not stand up here to-day for
the purpose Of waging indiscnmnate warfare
against any and every exercise OF the veto power
That il is a dangerous power and very liable TO
abuse, all intelligent men readily agree. The En-
gsh revolution, carried by the wings Of 1858, which
first laid solid foundation for those liberties which
Engllshinen enjoy, virtually expunged this whole
principle from the constitution OF the British mon
arehy. More than one hundred and fifty years have
elapsed since any king OF England has dared TO veto
an act OF Parliament. And how has the power been
exercised by great statesmen in our country Gen
eral Washington was most cautious in the exercise
Of the veto power and kept II strictly within its con
shtutional liaits. Thomas Jefferson, and both the
elder and the younger Adams, avoided the use ofth
veto altogether-not single instance of It's appca.
ton having occurred within their administrations.
The ancient and legitimate democracy OF this coun.
try occupied precisely the same position in refer
enee to this whole subject which the wings
resolved to maintain. So strongly was
Thomas Jefferson opposed to the exercise Of this
power that he refused to apply it in notable case
where his own opinions even, on a constitutional
question, had been openly expressed in opposition
10 the legislative will; and he yielded up his own
constitutional scrupes by approving supplemental
bill to the charter Of the Bank Of the United States
Ii was no tenet of the democracy Of his day to
strengthen the zone power;'' but the doctrines
which he professed (avowipg the utmost jealousy
Of Executive encroachmenD have gone out OF
fashion. Mr. Madison, while writing on this sub
ject declared that "the primary nducement in con-
ferring the veto power upon the Executive is to en-
able him to defend himself Indeed, even in Eng
land, where the king is considered part Of the Par
lament, and, therefore, pos sessng share Of egsla-
tive power, the royal negative would only be per.
mitted in cases where encroachments were attempt.
ed upon the royal prerogativesn He thence in
fers ortiOri, that in the United States where the
President IL expressly excluded from any share in
the eglsatl poWtr r, the Presidents negative would
never be PEI iited by nation of freemen, tex
Cept in cases where manifest encroachments were
attempted upon presidential rights and duties, or
where the negative was required to preserve the
Rttution from violation"
That the framers of the constitution never in
tended that any President should apply this power
to like that before US, will be manifest when
we reflect how utterly impossible it must be for
any one man, while discharging all the executive
duties enjoined on him by the constitution, to su-
peradd to these the than herculean task of ex
amining into the expediency and sheer Justice of
cry act of Congress involving question Of private
right We who serve in these halls, and who act
as members of committees in Congress, would
laugh at the folly and ridiculous pretensions of any
man among who should assert that he had accu-
rately examined every bill of this character which
passed Congress. ....
We know that we have to divide this labor
among great many men in each branch of fCongress
and that instead of each examining the details
of each bill in regard to which he is called upon to
vote, we are compelled to rely on the reports of
committees. No one member of Congress is capable
of investigating one-half the questions which pass
before US, much less could the President be expect
Ell to do It, encumbered as he is with many other
and even more onerous duties. presume the
President would readily admit that he knows moth
ing--absolutey nothing-of the Justice or Injustice
the cxpedency or inexpedency, of many of the
private laws or acts involving questions Of private
orpersona rights, to which he has affixed his sig
nature. He has been compelled, like his predeces-
soTs, to rely on Congress in all such cases.
With what propriety, then, can he claim it as any
part of his duty to examine the details ofany single
sase or class of cases Of this description, while he
daily absolves himself from the obligation to dis
charge the same duty in regard all other cases of
similar character
1t will also readily occur to every one that while
any one man must lack the ability to investigate ali
those cases which occupy the time and exhaust the
energies offs many members of Congress, he has
not the same means and facilities for accurate in
vestigation which they possess. He has not the
same power to examine witnesses and compel their
attendance which Congress confers on its committees
Neither the law the constitution has conferred on
him the powers requisite for Judge in these matters
When a bill of this character is presented to him,
none of these documents, none of these dispositions,
none of that evidence whatever it may be, goes to
him with it. The naked bill passed Congress is
the only paper delivered to him. IF he ,oiA act as
udge in appeal from Congress in these matters, he
must act without the evidence upon which Congress
formed its opinion He sees no petition, no remon-
in these cases. In the very one before us he
has never seen any Of the petitions Of those who
claim redress for these French spoliations. This
bill was kept before him two days only, and yet in
that brief interval of time he has overrued the de-
liberate action of both houses Of Congress, which