The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-30

dangerous power Have the right vest it in him at
all Aud Is there any man, even among those who think
they have the right clear in the conviction that this Is
the place in which they should ingra such legislation
But sir said before do not desire TO connect the
debate this BILL If avoid it, with the Kansas qnes
ton 1t is enough for the Senate 10 to the House As
this of general legislation, there is difference OF
opinion between you assert your opinion IN an In
dependent BILL and will assent TO II we oeeVe II TO
be right and so assert ours but we deny your
right put your opinions these subjects into an appro
praton bill it is not proper to say to us that we must
either yield 10 your opinions and aecede to your Will how
ever dangerous and improper deem It, else there
shall appropriation for the army and the wheels OF
shall stop" Who will DO responsible If that
suit should follow Not the Senate because il is standing
upon its manifest rights and privileges when II the
appropriation bill shall be simply confined to the objects
of such bills and shall not be united with Of gen.
era legislation which there is difference OF opinion
the houses but the House of Representatives
will be responsible if it shall say to u.s. "Unless you yield
your opinions differing you do from US this 9ues-
on will stop the wheels OF government altogether
There the country will fix the responsibility.
If the other house has any particular opinions the
Kansas question: 1t has discharged its duty when it has
passed bill imbodying them and sent it TO us II we fail
TO concur in it responsible for that and not the
House Ii only is responsible for endeavorng to force
us TO adopt its opinions through the fundamentally Of
appropriation BILL but will be held responsible by the
country If it shall continue in endeavorng to force
and and if such attempt TO usurp power
ii shall far insist to lose this BILL feel hesitation
in predicting that there will be unanimous outburs
against it throughout the country do not believe the
House will do it do not believe they insist any
pre;ension enormous extravaganza this seems to
me TO be and choose rather to presume that when the
Senate sead them back their BILL differing only by
having stricken from its face this provision which belongs
not TO the subject appropriation but to matter of
era legislation on which parties and the two houses d
vded they will feel the proprety Of passing those meas
ures of general appropriation to which all assent and Of
reservng this difficult and complicated and bitter matter
for separate and independent legislation.
After fther debate Mr. Hunter submitted the following
remarks in addition to what he had already said j
Mi, HUNTER arise for the purpose of correcting the
oaameaary law of the senator from Maine mr. FEssES-
pEs He maGe certain assertions in regard 10 the English
practice lacking which struck me as extraordinary at
the time butnot content with that he applied TO me as
knowing that the law as ne stated have no doubt
that he thought it to be what he stated
Mr. FESSENDEN. appealed 10 the senator as most
learned in parliamentary law OF any OF us.
Mr.. HUNTER | quote from one Of the most recent
books, Mays, on the subject, which says:
The constitutional power OF the Commons grant sup
pes without interference the part of the Lords has
occasionally been abused by lacking to bills of supply
mens which, anothe BILL would be rejected b. the Lords
but which, being joined Till that their lordshps have
right amend either be suffered TO pass unnoced
the rejection OF measure highly necessa for the pub
lie Such proceeding great Infringement ut
the privileges OF the Lords the interference of their lord
i Bssn and bR
rejection of the bills.
ON the 10Th of December l7O2 was ordered and de-
bills Of aid and supply the matter of which foreign and
different FROM said bill of aid and supply supplementary,
Mr. CLAYTON. What book is that
Mr. HUNTER Thomas Erskine Mays.
Mr.. FESSENDES. How long ago was that decided
Mr. HUNTER One thousand seven hundred and two
Mr. Hatsel says
Whenever this measure Of lacking bill Of supply is
the House OF Commons with intention OF
thereby compelling the Crown the Lords to give their
assent to bin which they would otherwise probably disap
prove reject is highly irregular and breach OF
those parliamentary rules and orders that have been estab
shed S long and uniform practice between the two houses
question which Is either before the House
Lords or Commons should be simple and little compH
but often pracsed Of putting together in the same bill
clauses that have relation each other and the subjects
of entirely different, ought to be avoided Even
where the propositions not liable TO objection
in either house. the heapng together in one Law such va
riey of unconnected and dscOrdRnt subjects unpara
mntary and tends only to misead and conouhd those
have consult the statute upon any parted-
point do this in where Is known that one
Of the component parts of the bill will be disagreeabc TO
the Crown the Lords ana that 1t was sent up alone
il would not be agreed tor tn @na a orS.
tack it bill of supply, which the eKigenc'es OF the
state make to pTov6ke The Other brapebe.
OF legislature in their turn TO depart from those rules
which they ought to be restrained o the long ana
shed forms Of Parliament and can have no other elect
than finally to introduce disorder and confusion"
AgsN, be says:
Tbe Lords, therefore, in their answer to the attempt
which made by the Commons IN 1909, replied with great
weight
Joining
foreign 70 the methods raising money and the quantity
or qualification the be raised is wholly desruct
i've Of the freedom debate dangerous the privileges OF
the Lords, aud the prsogatve OF the Crown for by
this things Of the last Ill consequence to the nation
NAV brought into money bills and yet neither the Lords
nor the be able give their negative to them with
out hRzarding the public peace and Eecurity.'
Now sir what said was, when either house sought TO
ma Ike the appropriation bills the means Of forcing on
nother measure which obnoxious to it. in either al
Tentative it was revolution 10 tse-tha say change
OF constitution for it forced the other house to yield It's
constitutional privileges in order 10 get the government
along 1t would be revolutionary If they failed TO he Co
creed in this way and stopped the wheels Of the
nent 10 compel them do il because II is their coust
tutona duty to carry this government and respect
the constitutional principles OF the other branch know
votes can be brought % which have voted for leisa
tive measures on the appropriation bills have always
believed that II rrcCulhr-hat II was improper; but
have never advocated the doctrine OF voting for IL in one
hons, hen known be obnoxious TO the other. But
oven In regard the tariff amend mcnt Of last year It will
be found 10y referring to the debate that admitted then
flat II il was obnoxious either house the other had
rcht to insist ard consequently when the Senate out Of
abundant caution struck II out against my vote admit
but struck il out 10 enee TO some such contingency as
this the House acceded IT, and admitted the proprcy OF
doing So only urged II upHn the ground that II was
agreeable the House where IL passed almost without
reference to party II it agreeable TO the Senate too
aud agreeable all sides should not there was any
thing revolutionary improper in the act But what IL
revolutionary and what is improper in my estimation, Is
for one house attempt the appropriation bills to
force on the other legislation which Is obnoxious TO It, 10
make il give up It's will its views Of propHety its feelings
Of what s right The distinction s obvious have never
said that the Of seudng this provision here II
agreeable to u.s. would be revolutionary IN itself but say
tbst II after have shown dissent to it, and de-
cIarsd that il Is not agreeable W, they should in
ia, on H. and say must either take il they will stop