Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1848-08-19

Here we see that they think the existing (tha
is, practically "restrictions and responsibilities,
under which the President exercises the Veto, ar
"amply sufficient to guard the public interest.
They even 60 the extraordinary length of intimat
ing, in reality, that no a0 ought to take effect un
less it can obtain vote of two-thirds of boil
Houses of Congress; and they REFER as their ia
vorite and sole instances of the employment of tn,
power, to the cases of the recharer Of the United
States Bank and to Mr.. Folks negative on thu
" River and Harbor Bill" Now, we need hardly
point to the fact that Of the Locofoco vetoes
haze had for their object the great end defence
of the Executive functons) Which induced the gram
Of the po,cer. As to its exercise for general con
stitutional purposes, every body knows that, in
both their selected instances, (Which must be taken
OF course, to embody their sense of the chief aim
OF the thing,) there was no constitutional ground
for the Supreme Court had adjudged the matter OF
the Bank, and President Jackson had himself de.
clared that a Bank was constitutional; while, as to
Internal Improvements, his decision was that they
had only to be National THAT is, to extend to more
than one State IN order to be Dithin the poacer OF
Congress. Lastly, as to the "restrictions and re-
sponsbiites of the Veto, which they declare sam
| ply sufficient" what they In effect, none
the President may negative any iaV upon aay
! ground. He may object to either substance, form,
time, or what he likes: his personal opinion, his
personal will, is enough, although he has properly
nothing to do with legislation. He may veto bill
because it is not written on such parchment as he
! likes, or with ink of particular color. In
short, they give him power over the laws cock
ensive with legislation itself, and completely its
master. As to his responsibility" what is it |?
impeachment alone remedy noW known to be
perfectly empty which cannot be employed against
a strong President; which UM not be employed
against weak one. Besides, unless a criminal
intention could be proved, how could veoing
4 President be convicted
Finally, let US see if we cannot do what has not
yet been done any where-examine for ourselves
the nature and the principle of the VETO.
The earliest and most famous example of this
power of nterpostion, to prevent legislation, by
the negative voice of those who had no share in it,
is the Roman one, from which we take the present
usual name for the thing. The Senate, which was
formed out of the patricians 1.-THE nobles) Alone ORR
ginally possessed the whole legislative power. OF
course, it often made laws to- the prejudice of the
piebs, THE common people.) At length, in the year
OF the city 260, and fifteen years after the estab-
lishment of the republic, popular revolt breaking
out on account of the oppressiveness of certain
laws, the Senate compromised with the people, by
agreeing that the tribes should have officers called
"Tribunes of the People," who without any other,
any affirmative part in legislating, might take, as
| representatives Of the people, negative one.
They could not vote, could not enter the hall but
sitting at the open door and watching all the pro-
ceedngs, had right to stop in its progress any law
oppressive to the people, by crying out, in their
name, Peto, I" forbid It." They thus announced
that the people would not submit to it; and the
Senate was bound to go no further, as long as the
opposition they made continued They had the
power-easily exercised in city-of assembling
the people and consulting them as to whether they
should continue the resistance and so defeat the
law. They were chosen by the people; could be
none but pebeans; and their persons were inviola-
BILE. They were public officers for no other pur-
pose, with no other duty. Now, from all this il
plainly appears that this Veto had no principle in
common with our Executives. He answers to
their consuls, who were the Roman chief magis-
trates, and had no negative upon the laws: the
| Tribunes stood for the people only, who through
them alone took this negative right over a legisa-
ton in which they had no other share while, in
our system, it is Tor should be) the people alone
who make, through their representatives, their own
laws. In Rome, the object Of the Veto was TO pro-
tect the people from legislature which was not
theirs, but arisocracys here, the legislature is
the peoples only, is the people itself, far as il
can be brought into one body, TO make its own laws
There, then, it was the Peoples Veto; here, it is
Veto upon the People.
| The next remarkable example Of the thing is the
hbermn Ueto las it was called) the independent
negative" which belonged to every member Of the
Polish Diet or Parliament. This body consisted OF
mobiles and eccesiastics only; for the mere people
had no share in the government. Poland was
Republic; but, like ours, had an elective King.
Not he, however, held the veto, like ours it was
every separate member of their one-boded Con-
gress, who might Ueto the bills OF all the rest by
simply saying Me pozwalam, Il don't permit.)
When Russia first partoned Poland, she left her
that Diet, where one mans voice could stay every
public good: she could infict nothing more fatal
nm her and che shared the yeto Ours 10 Eke bers