New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-07-18

Were :his N original question. and were =. nov
called upon for tie frs; trs 70 give 10 The Governor
this Veto power as I, n tie CONSTITUTIONS ho suy
here would give Tim such negative upon Leg
slsiion Very few. aPpretented. Re Tor oce vas
wholly opposed 70 c5is provision v.s anti Democratic
and be would sdop, TIE Amendment which had been
offered The fact that pet 20 Dill no s,;sr
how Just was could command .Eo-tnirt vote after
,his veto Of the Governor Il therefore in effect clothed
him with deseo:ic and uncontrolled power. /, would
De check enough allow lin 70 send back bill for
reconsideration.
There Ess 10 dsnger tina, zny tsd bill would Be re.
passed uncer such circumstances, unless Il we're the
case Of corporations where nousyed irEuences Nigh.
be brought bear upon the Legislature. and il such
il would be equally probable that tae .niu.
I ences would reach the Executive. Ws were about to
s,rp the Execu:iTe-or IL Vas 30 proposedof nearly
all hii patronage. and YET We were TO Leave With him
this unqualified despoac negative OF the will Of the
Representatives OF toe people. Far more dangerous
iais power thar the mere privilege Of dealing
Office 20 hos: Of sJcophants craving around the Ex-
ecuiive fooa;-oi.
The proposition rso1i-irg third incor-
ssant with that safe rule which gives the power OF
eminent 10 tie majority. And &c thought that IL no
place could tSs power be delegated more safely thsn
win the legislature from their proximity
Tituens and coming from them iEey old every year
freshly Stamped with their spprovs Unless give up
the principle OF integrity and The power Of the
people 10 govern themselves who shall say that the
joritJ Of the delegated power Of the people shall not
have power 20 pass laws There nigh: De an instance
when bu, single wanted make two-ta.-ds.
some would 10 prevent The OF bad laws
in other word. the people from their representa-
t!ves, in truth, from themselves.
has been argued in favor Of the veto power that Il
would have the tendency the passage OF bad
lava which might either through nadver;ance, mistake
design be through the Legislature. But why not
suppose that the Legislature who will soon return TO
their constituents and the expression of thcir aP
probation 6sapprovel will be sss likely 10 do an I'M
proper than the Governor who IS not Immediately
responsible TO the people II had also been ssidehat
IVA IN act az 4 &c DISPOSITION
improper inexped5nt laws. But hs believed there
ssrty 10 the exercise OF the veto power by
Governor In the scts OF the popular branch ui
the Government.
The legislature under this proposed amendment Mr..
Rhosdess would have only the benefit Of time, but Of
the suggestion OF the Executive stop and check npru
dent action. Il system OF our Government that the
Executive, Legislative and judicial Departments should
he Kept distinct For this he had deemed this
negative OF the Executive upon Legislative action. an I'M
wise IL was not novel proposition that majority
OF members elect could pass bill notwithstanding the
Of the Governor. II already ensratei in Ten
State Constitutions, and Mr.. W. alluded 10 them-vz
KENTUCKY, Illinois, Indiana Vermont Arkansas, Aaos-
Sew Jersey, Florida Missouri. SC There were sew
States liberal still. where this Executive mega
,ve wholly regulated. Tennessee, Ohio Maryland
and ihe Caroliuas, totally repudlae Executive negauon
IN any form-so does Rhode Island.
NJ. W. was aware that the committee and gentlemen
could appeal TO precedent for their sciion.ThIs
venerable relic OF antiquity II wss as had been said by
the gentleman from Orange, that this sad always been
prerogatve Of the British Crown II had been copied IN
the Constitutions OF States but still in theory
acknowledged that all power in the people. 1t
might when the Convention OF 1871 abel
shed Council Of Revision and thus separated our judi
cai officers from the political But he could not
say equally wise 20 entrus; this prerogave to
the control OF the power.
Mr.. W. submitted whether precedent should control this
question. the the Federal Constitution
ar referred the fact that many Of its trainers
dcsrcus give strength 10 the Executive to
guard the people agalns, legislative encroachment But
experience had shown us that the danger was not from
this but had had abundant evidence that the EXecu-
tive power had been than exercised TO defeat
sautary and wholesome laws lie believed Its adoption by
the Federal Government; had led 70 adoption by many of
The States Upon principle he could consent 10 en-
graft upon Constitution principle repugnant 10
free Government.
lie would go far any man 20 purify these Lessa
tive Halls from corrupiing influences, ITO break up CEN
INFLUENCE aud SPECIAL LEcIsLATioS but he would
build up this gigantic power, which. though
the British Monarchy had not been exercised
for than century. This veto TO be reta ned
might work great injury and he would therefore strike
He had that confidence In the people, that he belicv-
they would Representatives who would con-
themselves into awless neb and would require TO
be overruled by the Executive. lie believed m2ortes
should govern In this country The Amendment of the
tleman from onondaga met his entire appreciation.