Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-07-01


that the commons, who are the representatives
Of the people, have right pass upon all ques-
tons involving the expenditure of the money
of the people. And that is the spirit of our in
stitutions. 1t cannot be supposed that we
have fallen behind England in that respect,
and that we are placed in a less favorable po-
sition than the people of England occupy.
beg leave here to read few lines. from the
celebrated work of De Lolme on the constitu-
ton of England, who, considering the powers
Of the house of commons says:
In reading the foregoing enumeration of the
powers with which the laws of England have
intrusted the king, we are at loss TO reconcile
them with the idea OF monarchy which, we are
told, is limited. The king mol only unites in him
sell all the branches Of The executive power; he
not only dlsposes, without control, OF the whole
military power in the State but he is, moreover, il
seems, the master Of the law itself, since he calls
up and dismisses at his will the legislative bodies.
We find him, therefore, AT first sight, invested
with all the prerogatives that ever were claimed
by the most absolute monarchs, and we are at a
loss 10 find that liberty which the English seem so
confident they possess.
But the representatives of the people still have
that is saying enough--they still have in their
hands, now that the Constitution is fully estab-
lished, the same powerful weapon which has
enabled their ancestors 10 establish it, II is still
from their iberality alone thai the king obtain
subsidies and in these days, when everything is
rated by pecuniary estimation; in these days,
when gold is become the great moving spring OF
affairs, IT may be safely affirmed that he who de-
ponds on the will of other men with regard 10 so
important an article is, whatever his power may
ence."
The King of England, therefore, has the pre-
rogatIve OF commanding armies and equipping
fleets but. without the concurrence OF his Parlia
ment he cannot maintain them He can bestow
places and empoymenls but, without his Parlia
ment, he cannot pay the salaries attending on
them. He can declare war; but, without his Par
lament, II is impossible for him 10 carry il on. In
word, the royal prerogative, destitute, as it is,
OF the power OF imposing lakes is like vast body
which cannot, OF itself, accomplish its motions !;
or, If You will, il is like ship, completely equip
ped, but from which the Parliament can, at plea
sure, draw offthe water apd leave il aground, and
also sci II again aaoat by granting subsidies"
Sir, that is the great basis of the English
Constitution-the right of the representatives
to- determine the pecuniary burdens that shall
be imposed upon the people. And shall it be
said that the representatives Of the American
people have less power than the commons Of
England2 Certainly not. / consider, then,
this right of the House of Representatives to
pass upon all money bills as the very corner
guard of our liberties; and, ] for one, will
never consent to abandon it. / cannot agree
with the opinions on this subject expressed by
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.. PHILLIPS.
/ know that some of the ablest writer's upon
constitutional law have held different doctrines
federal doctrines which we're promulgated
by the earlier fathers of the federal school
that this House have no right to pronounce
upon appropriations required by a treaty; that
the treaty making power is absolute and un-
limited; and that, after q treaty has been rati-
fed, this House is under an absolute and per-
emptory obligation to make the appropriations
required. That is, / think, the doctrine set
forth by the gentleman from Alabama. But,
sir, hold that the House has perfect full,
and free discretion; that we are TO do as we
think best according to our honest judgments
not that we are wantonly to reject treaty APP
preparation without sufficient cause but that
we have the right to exercise sound discre-
ton as to whether we will pass or reject it.
Why, sir, what was the practice Of the Brit
ish government at the time our Constitution
was formed for the practice Of that govern
ment at that time is of much importance in
giving the proper Interpretation and meaning
to our own Constitution in reference to this
subject, because ii was from that source our
ancestors, in great degree, derived their ideas
of government. 1t was from that source they
drew the very life-blood of our institutions.
Now, sir, what was the practice in England
at the time Of the formation Of our Constitu-
ton According to Blackstone and other
elementary writer's, the King is invested with
the absolute right to make treaties. But, in
point of fact all monetary propositions, or
propositions affecting in any way the internal
regulations of the country embraced in treaties,
had to be submitted to the House of Commons.
Well, sir, our ancestors, in framing our Con-
stitution, could not but have been governed, in
great degree, in framing the treaty-making
power, by the practice then in existence in
England, and which is still in existence there.
With the practice then existing, that all propo-
sitions involving the appropriation Of money
must be submitted to the House Of Commons,
is it to be supposed that our ancestors were
ignorant Of that practice? Or, surprising them
to be acquainted with it, is it to be supposed
they were blind to its force? Sir, when they,
in imitation of the practice in England, consii-
tuted the President and two-thrds of the Senate
the treaty.making power, and when that prac.
tice gave to the House Of Commons the right
to refuse appropriations if they thought proper,
it cannot be supposed that the founders of our
institutions would endow our House of Repre-
sentatives with less power, with less authority,
than was given to the British House Of Com.
mons-a body which nominally had very
large constituency, but which really had very
small one. / must conclude, then, from these
circumstances, if from none other, that the true
Interpretation Of the Constitution is TO give to
this House the power for which / have con-
tended. / cannot conceive that our fathers, in
forming our institutions, would have given to
this House fewer rights and privileges than
was given to the corresponding body in Eng
land, but must conclude that while they gave
to the President and Senate the power OF max
ing treaties, they gave TO this House the right
toRrant or refuse appropriations.
Again, Mr.. Chairman, the Constitution says,
in one clause, that Congress shall have power
TO pass all laws necessary and proper to carry
into effect the expressly enumerated powers
conferred on any department. II does not say
that they shall pass such laws, but that they
shall have power to do so. Well that meets
this particular case. The treaty making power
"a tuvn n ~ onft THE