Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-05-11

that the proper course would have been to ex
pose the instances in which the language of
the message was tortured from its true mean
ing, and refute and overthrow the erroneous
deductions which have been made from its
statements and arguments, rather than under
take to rebuke discussion by limitations of I'M
worthy motives, which cannot fail to react upon
those who make them, if not upon the admin
istration ITSELF
What chiefly concerns us, however, is the
plain intimation of the Union that the doctrines
of the message were intended to apply only to
the insane bill, and the distinct announcement
that those doctrines do not contain any COM
initial touching such donations of land as those
contained in the land schemes now pending.
Tho Union pronounces it rashness to say SHAT
because the President cannot approve q bill for
purely eleemosynary purpose he cannot ap-
prove one which grants his homestead to the
hardy pioneer" But it must be remembered
that the reasons adduced to justify veto in the
one case might compel a veto in the other in
order to preserve consistency. Would there be
any rashness in that event? For instance, the
President urges the fact that the public lands
are pledged for the payment Of portion of the
public debt as a reason forbidding that they
be given away in charity. Does not that pledge
equally forbid that they be given away without
consideration? And, if so, is it rashness to
apply the argument to the homestead bill?
We regret the article in the Union chiefly,
if not entirely, because it may place the ad-
ministration in wrong attitude before the
public. We do not believe that the President
intends to mutilate the strong argument he
presented in his recent message, or to shrink
back from its legitimate deductions and conse-
quences. But the article we speak Of cannot
fail to create an opposite belief in many quar-
tiers where the Union is supposed to speak by
authority whenever it undertakes to speak Of
important matters Of public concern. The idea
that the Executive means to apply general
principles and general arguments only to spe-
cial cases, and compress their operation to
particular measures, would be most injurious.
We will, therefore, reject such an idea, although
the tone Of the Union would seem to justify it,
until we have more convincing authority. That
journal has made many blunders, and we trust,
for the sake of the administration, that it has
made another in the present instance.
CHE PRINCIPLES OF THE VETo MESSAGE
| 1t cannot have escaped observation that the
principles announced by the President in his
late veto message have provoked quite as much
| speculation and discussion in regard to their
| applicability to other measures pending before
| Congress as to the particular bill presented to
| the Executive for his approval. The friends
and the opponents of the several propositions
involving the public lands have sought in the
message for the evidences of approval or oppo-
sition to those measures, and they have not
| hesitated to declare their construction with q
confidence which seems to indicate purpose
| to influence the action Of Congress, or to embar-
rass that of the President. It's not our purpose
! to undertake to determine the question whether,
| upon the principles Of his message, the Presi-
| dent can approve the homestead bill, or bills
| granting alternate sections for railroad pur-
poses, or others of like character. We desire
only to state that the principles announced in
the message were laid down with an eye to the
particular bill under consideration, and as the
reasons upon which the President was unable,
in the discharge of his constitutional obligations,
to give to that bill his approval.
"When other bills shall be presented, he
will give to them the same deliberate and con-
scientious investigation which he has bestowed
upon the insane bill and if he is constrained
again to withhold his approval, we doubt not
! that he will do so upon principles as sound and
,,,h ~
sage. 1t was neither the purpose, nor would
it have been the province, Of the President to
go outside of the bill before him to promulgate
sentiments that might embarrass or influence
the action of Congress on other measures. II,
! however, in assigning his reasons for declin-
| ing to approve the insane bill, it became neces-
! sary to announce principles which are legiti-
mately applicable to other pending questions,
he would not be expected to suppress them.
"Whilst, therefore, we concede that it is legit-
innate to discuss the applicability Of the prin-
4 ciples of the message to other bills before Con-
gress, with the view of forming opinion astothe
probable action of the President in the event of
the passage fthese bills, we protest against any
effort either to bring this species of executive in
huence to operate upon the action of Congress,
or by this means to create public sentiment
for the purpose of embarrassing the future &C.
ton of the President
1 at cannot but be highly gratifying to the
friends Of the President to see that his reasons
for vetoing the insane bill are so conclusive
that the main opposition to them is based upon
their supposed applicability to other measures,
| as well as to the one returned to the Senate.
The principles laid down in the message are
regarded by the President as vital and funda.
mental; they will assuredly be faithfully adj
hered to in his future action; and if in their
application, other measures presented to him
shall fall within their purview, he will not fail
to give them practical effect If he should fail
to find satisfactory reasons for such application
of vital principles, he will be justly responsible
to the people; and to that great tribunal he
will ever cheerfully submit. Every man has
an undisputed right to controvert the principles
announced, or to discuss their applicability to
other bills, bat no one has a right to declare
what may be the future action Of the PresideAg
in the application Of these principles, whether
tbat daclarat;on 20 nada IN nreiudice him In adj