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


Cortes, says to him: Nos, que oalemos ta,ato conn
DOS, os hacemos reg y senior con tai que nos guar
deis nuestros fueros 9 RJertades; q sine, no: tina
is, We, who are as good as you, make you king
and lord !; on condition, however, that you keep GU
laws and liberties and if not not" (See Robert
sons Charles "" and Penny Cyclopedia,
article ARAGoN.)
/ In France, the Constituent Assembly Of 1886
granted to the King, by the first French Constitu
ton, veto upon its acts. This was there neces
sary for the Legislature consisted Of but one body
and was therefore without the check upon itsel
which we have in the reciprocal negative of the
Senate and House upon each others bills. Never
theless, the first time that the poor King did use
his veto it ruined him. Under the Charters Of
1914 and $780, the Kings Veto was preserved
but we can recall no instance of its exercise. In
Norway, the King may veto the bills Of the Stor-
thing, legislature which submitted to him for
his approval but if three successive Storthngs re-
enact the bill, by mere majority, it becomes law,
without the royal assent. 1t by the aid Of this
provision that Nobility was abolished in Norway.
The Storthing brought in law for that purpose :
but what Democracy !" calls " the most conserva-
tive feature of our institutions "interposed to con-
serve" the titled grandees the King vetoed the
law. Nobody-except the Mobiles and their de-
pendants-cried "Long live King Veto'' Per
haps there was no Locofoco party there. Poor
Norwegians AT any rate, two more successive
Storthings persisted in the enactment |; and Veto
and Titles were slain together.-(See (" Encyclo-
pedia .4mericana," article VETo.)
In the history Of Vetoism, the English only re-
mains--hat relic of the times of the lioness Queen
Elizabeth or of her still fercer father which, when
English freedom grew fixed, it would not endure !;
and of which, when the spirit of England first
waxed high to the destruction of foolish King,
Milton wrote in strong and lofty words, the very
majesty Of Lberty's noblest language the sound of
which should sting, if it cannot fire, the degenerate
commonwealth which can sit tamely under the
most aggravated shame of what he describes. An
swering the serve arguments for this royal right,
he says: The conclusion, therefore, must needs
be quite contrary to what he concludes that no.
thing can be more unhappy, more dishonorable,
more unsafe for all, than when wse grave, and
honorable Parliament shall have labored, debated,
argued, consulted, and las he himself speaks)
contributed for the public good all their counsels
in common, 10 be then frustrated, disappointed,
denied, and repulsed, by the single Whit of ne
gatve from the mouth Of one wilful man nay, 10
be blasted, TO be struck as mute and mo,ionless as
Parliament of tapestry in the hangings; or else,
after all their pains and travail, to be dissolved
and cast away, like SO many noughts in arith-
metc, unless it be TO turn the of their insignif-
canoe into lamentaton with the people, who had
so vainly sent them ! For this is not to enact
all things by public consent as he would have us
be persuaded; il is to enact nothing, but by the
| private consent and leave of one not negative
tyrant this is mischief without remedy, a sitting
and obsructing evil that hath no vent, no outlet.
no passage through. Grant him this, and the
Parliament hath no more freedom than if it sat in
his moose, which, when he pleases to draw to-
geher with one twich of his negative, shall throt-
tie whole nation, to the wish of Caligula, in one
neck. ~ Aaswer 10 Eikon Basihke.")
Wehave thus given in brief the several forms under
which, as a resort in governmental mechanism, the
Veto has existed and these instances must if there
be any common principle among them, help us TO it.
Evidently, not necessarily Republican can that
be which has been,' by free nations, torn from
kings, as making royalty itself despotc. If, then,
itmay be despotc, it cannot be :" a most conserva-
tive institution" unless by that you mean conserya-
tive of arbitrary power well as Of freedom Con-
servatve, our founders clearly intended it should
be; but Of what! OF the appointed power Of the
Executive, whenever the Legislative shall have in
vaded it, Of preserving for him an executive, not
of bestowing on him legislative power. Mainly,
if not entirely, it was for that: it has, by Jackson
ism, been turned entirely into this. Even for that
it was to be rarely and timidly exercised it has
been frequently and rashly exercised for this. II
was intended for an incidental--it has been con-
verted to substantive power for defensive, and
il has become an assaiant one. 1t has not been
held as shield over the Executive but, as wea-
pom Of his WILL he wields il to strike or errify Con-
gress and the Courts That only is conservative
which is conservativey used, and not like TO be used
otherwise for conservative power is power to
check the excuses of another power; and, so far,
it must be superior one or will soon become SO.
To hinder this as much as you can, you must limit
the negative strictly to its legitimate objects if you
give general power-m Executive check, for in
stance, on aHlegslative acts-you give despotism
you give real power over all legislation to the
4 H. al - n -