The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-09-14
THE UNION.
CITY OF w sHIN TON.
MONDAY NIGHT, SEPT, /
THE VETO OF THE FRENCH CLAIMS
RIII

) The general question presented for consideration
in this veto, was whether the Executive should in
terpose its constitutional authority to remit TO the
further consideration of Congress, the prOprety Of
, making payment by a method unprecedented and
Objectionable if not unknown to the constitution, Of
, an Anticipated and very doubtful claim in time Of
war. and of probable severe pressure upon the
treasury Merely to state this question must be, in
the view Of all fair men, to raise very reasonable
presumption in favor of such executive interpos-
ton.
But when, besides this, it is recollected that the
bill itsefgav only five millions Of land scrip where
much larger amount was due, if anything was
due-that the claims had become strangely CONSOLE
dated into very few hands-that the bill was hur-
ried to its passage almost without debate in a ses-
sion greatly occupied with momentous mat
ters-that not one special reason for its passage
nOU was any hand aleged-that il failed to
pass in years past when wise statesmen were en-
gagged in devisng relief for the plethora of the
treasury-that the claimants found no favor nor
sympathy with the Legislators of their own genera
tion-that their claim prevailed at last with Con-
gress only xter lapse Of time sufficient to bar in
equity and 10 law most other esims-that it prevail
ed, then, apparently on the principle ofpaying part
instead Of the whole, TO get rid OF mportunity-that
the method Of payment adopted would necessarily
give rise to land speculations running through
ries Of hands, and interfering with the policy of the
land system-that these claims aecrung out OF seiz
ures made in quasi, il not actual war, were Of a
character universally deemed inadmissible by gov
ernments, and surely of most dangerous precedent
hat nfan
a view TO the assumption Of these claims, is more
than doubtful and that the fact Of their assumption
was, at the time, peremptorily dened-wben all these
things borne in mind, il would surely seem as if
farther consideration of the case only confirmed
the prHla aes presumption in favor Of the veto to
which we have alluded. Yet these considerations
cogent as they SEEM lie plainly on the very surface
of the question, and do not touch that deeper and
more philosophical view of it in relation to the obi
cations of governments deducible from the nature
ofthe social compact, which view, to the mind Of
one Of our most learned and experienced statesmen,
was Of itself conclusive against the validity of the
claims.
Ii is unnecessary to allude at length to the cir
cumsances favorable TO a combination of corrupt in
auences-partisan or pecuniary-to effect the pas
sage Of the bill The reasonabeness of the veto
upon it may judged more readily, and perhaps as
correctly by consideration of the methods resorted
to by the enemies Of the administration to attack
the measure. OF this attack as is well known, the
National Inteligencer, or some writer in its col
umns, has been the principal instrument In the
Boston Post, which comes to hand as we write this,
we find an exposure of the Intelligencers article
upon the subject thorough and conclusive, that
we hasten to lay portion of it at once before our
readers
"The National Intelligencer contains long, te-
dious article upon the Of the bill providing for
the payment OF the French claims. Ii has been
copied into the Daily Advertiser. Every paragraph
might be refuted in detail with perfect ease but that
would extend this reply to an immoderate length,
and the labor Of writing and reading il would be
greater than the article Of the Integencer is worthy
Of The right the positive duty, OF the President's
examining and passing his Judgment upon every bill
before he signs 1t, is as imperative and as much
requisition of the constitution, is any other pres-
ldenual duty, or as is the right or duty of either
branch of Congress to do the same. All this pre-
tence therefore, that the President must not exer-
else this power, except in the most ertrtme cases.
If wholly unfounded, ia perfect nonsense and is
urged only by Interested and disappointed per-
sons, or by mere party men, who ever watch
ing some opportunity to fix, if possible, ground
less stigma on the President to make HIM unpopu-
lar, and to defeat the future democratic elections
This Is evidently the whole object of the weak il
logical, evasive tertuous article in the InteIleencer
| 1.-The President said he had not had an opportunity
to extend his examination of the subject into its mi
mute Details Much is attempted, again and again,
to be made of this expression. II is misrepresented
to mean an examination of the items that are to be
admitted in favor of this or that individual This
IS gross, unprincipled perverson. The Pre-
sident undoubtedly means by the details an
inquiry to ascertain that the large sum of five mil
lions Is actually requred-hat the claims against
France were legal under International jurisprudence
that if they were so, this government had ever as
sumed their payment-that the constant, uniform
rejection OF these claims by Congress for upwards of
forty years were not founded on good and sufficient
grounds-that if the claims are to be allowed and
paid at the proper time, whether the present is not
the most improper time, &c, &c. The microscopic
eye OF the lnteligencer, accustomed to minute OBJ
| jecs only, and unable to comprehend large ones,
magnfes heas into Holsters, and overlooks elephants
| and mastodons.
"But, says this writer Congress had upon full
Investigation, recognised the fact of the claims, &C.
&c. What, then, was there to ascertain icon
gress had so done, which is not proved yet it was
the Presidents duty to revise that investigation to
certain extent and ascertain for himself that the
principle is correct. Ii it is to be assumed that
small majority IN Congress is always correct, abso-
utely infalble, then, indeed, the veto power is
superfuous part of the constitution.
Again, he says, Congress has, after repeated in
vestgations, decided these claims to be just. He
should have said, Congress- after repeated invest-
cations, had decided these claims to be unjust forty
three times in succession; and now, after only one
investigation, has decided only once that they are
just If different uries had tried certain case
yearly for forty-three years, and had uniformly
decided it against the plaintiff; and if, the forty
fourth time, another jury, in great hurry, on the
last day of the term, under strong suspicious of cor
ruPt motives, had given a verdict in his favor,
which of these verdics would probably be the just
and correct onel Unquestlonably that which had
forty-three docisions against to one in its favor.
What court is there which would hesitate, in such
case, to order new trial after the last solitary YER
dicti None. ThePresdent in like case, has on
ly ordered new trial, and with the utmost pro.
priety.
Again: the Integencer says the President ar
CUES, Il did not pay you yesterday, therefore
ought not to pay you to-day This is entirely un-
true,-,a complete fiction. The Presidents argument
ia tYOu ho boan oftpn ref1qpd affair ron,atad