The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-27

the proposition Of Mr. Randolph for the purpose OF submit
ting that "the national Executive shall have right to
negative any legislative which shall not afterwards be
passed by parts Of each branch Of the national legs
lature In making his motion, Mr. Gerry remarked that
it quite foreign from the Of the Office of the
judges to make them judges Of the policy opublc
Mr. Gerry's motion carried and when his proposition
up, Messrs Wilson and Hamilton moved TO amend
il SO 10 gre The Ereeuvs absolute Negative the
laus
1t VIII be that there were three distinct PROPOSE
tons submitted all of which conceded that there ought
be check upon the Legislature The first question
was whether the check should be exercised by council Of
revision to consist Of the Executive the judiciary the
next whether the Executive alone should have the absolute
negative and the third whether the Executive should
the qualified negative subject be by fixed pro-
portion OF the legislature These three propositions
discussed at considerable length and this discussion
that find the real character and objects of the dis
tncty shown
The proposition Of Messrs Wilson and Hamilton to
amend, as to give the Executive absolute negative
was rejected by unanimous vote.
The blank in Mr.. Gerry's proposition was filled with
two-thrds" without division and then, upon the
proposition amended which gave the Executive alone
without the Judiciary the revsonary control the laws
unless overruled by wohrds of each branch the clause
stands in the constitution eight States voted in the
affirmative and two in the negative.
1t is worthy Of special remark that whilst there
wide difference between the absolute and qualified negatives
proposed in respect the Effects of their exercise there
to the aws to which they made apptica-
bthe negative in both shapes applicable to all lars
well those that might be vetoed for nepdny those
for uaconstamonaliy In the debate no intimaton
made by any speaker limitation of the negative to
that might be regarded by the Executive uncons
tutona but all treated the question if all conceded that
the veto well applicable to nexpedient to
| stitutiona acts
Mr. Wilson afterwards moved TO reconsider the vote
which excluded the judiciary from the council of revision
and moved to insert after national Executive" the words
sand convenient number of the national Judiciary"
Mr. Madison supported the notion and closed his remarks
with the following clear definition OF the veto power: In
short said Mr. N.Y. whether the object of the revsionay
power to restrain the legislative from encroachng the
other coordinate departments the rights Of the people at
large, from passing taws uncise in their principle IN
correct in their FORM the utility of annexing the wisdom
and weight of the Judiciary the Executive seemed ncon
testabe"
This proposition failed but afterwards renewed by
Mr. Wilson, who debated the question: and in the of
his remarks defined clearly the objects Of the negative
ut had been said Remarked Mr., W. that the judges
expostors of the laws would have opportunity of de-
tending their constitutional rights There weight in
this observations but this power Of the judges did not go
far enough. Lars may be unjust may be unwse may be
dangerous may be destructive and get may not De uncon
aiona oJusiy the judges in refusing give them effect
Let them have share in the revsonary power and they
will have opportunity of taking notice Of those charac
ters of law, and of counteracng, by the weight of
their opinions the improper views of the Legislature"
Mr.. Corham said as judges they not to be presumed
possess any peculiar knowledge Of e mere policy Of pub
Tic measures"
Mr.. Madison advocated the motion, and said 1t would
be useful to the Judiciary department. by giving adi
onal opportunity of defending itself against legislative
Entertainments 1t would be useful to the Executive by in
spring additional confidence and rmness in exertng the
revsonay power 1t would be useful the legislature by
the valuable assistance il would give in preserving
stency conciseness perspcny and technical proprety
in the laws. acould moreorr be useful TO The community
at large as additional check against pursuit Of those
we and unjust ehich constituted so large portion
Of our caiamities"
Colonel Mason advocated the motion and said that
the defence of the Executive the sole object
of the reyisionary power. He expected greater
advantages from it The legislature must be expected
frequently TO pass unjust and pernicious iaaos This
sroining porer therefore, essentially necessary Hcoud
hare The effect only Of hndering the final passage Of
such lac but would discourage demagogues from attempts
ing get them passed He said that in their capacity as
judicial officers the judges could impede in only
the operation of awtbey could declare law unconsti-
tutional But Nth regard 10 epry lar houecer unjust, OPP
pre,ipe erncious that did not plainly under this
description they would be under the necessity, judges
give it free course lie wished The further use 10 be
made Of The judges Of gicing aid preventing euey improper
lascp
The motion of Mr., Wilson for joining the judges with
the Executive council of revision rejected leaving
the clause it now stands in the constitution
These references the debates in the convention remove
all for doubt to the true meaning and the real OBJ
ects of the veto clause in the constitution and triumphant
B sustain the positions clearly laid down in the late
sage of President Pierce and cordially and universally
approved by the democratic party The great fear of the
trainers of the constitution that the President
would lack the moral courage the power
unless he strengthened and sustained by The judiciary
revsonary council OF the necessity Of such restrain
ing power in the constitution they entertained no doubts
The democratic party have taken their lessons those
sages and they therefore, stand by the as
tia feature in the constitution They make it point to