Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-05-24
A Plea in Defence.

IN trunplng up excuses. AS no poSsiDle
attack of the Prince could corner the fat
knight, or .justle the even balance OF his
cauanimity, so no amount of undcniablc
Wing truth, showcred down upon the heads
of the leaders of the Democracy, can make
them confess themselves the miserable politi
cal sinners they real v are.
Thus, they even have the sublime impu-
dence and assurance to deny their RESPONSE
bility for the extravagant expenditures of
the Government And what, think you. is
the excuse they set up! Why, they say that
the Congress before the last had an OPP
position majority in the House of Repre-
sentatives--and that, therefore, the Democ-
racy were not responsible for the expendi-
lures.
Now. it is an exceedingly laborious and
uphill business to answer such Il charge Us
this-because every sensible man must see
and know ut once that the plea is totally in
dcfensible To answer Il charge 50 palpably
absurd is about as hard work as to attempt
seriously to demonstrate the correctness vi an
axiom.
Everybody knows, or ought to know, that
it requires the concurrence OF three distinct
constitutions" to pass al Appropriation Bill,
and make it law Of the land-to wit, the
House of Representatives, the Senate, and
the President. Grant that the House of
Representatives passes an extravaganza APP
preparation Bill-cannot the Senate check
it? Cannot the Senate amend the bill If 1t
thinks proper, and cut down the approprla-
ton? Most assuredy it can. for the thing Is
done ut every session of Congress. And.
even supposing the Senate to agree to an 'S-
travagagant appropriation, has not the Pres.
ident his Constitutional right OF veto? I'm
questionably he has. ~ everybody knows.
Now then, what is the use of the Democra-
cy DENYING their responsibility for the ex-
travagant expenditures when such denial Is
the most preposterously absurd thing in the
world! They have had the President since
lS52-they have had the Senate since 1915
they have had the House of Representa-
tives, with the single exception of the Con-
gress before the last, for many years. At
no time since Mr. Pierce entered upon the
Presidency, have the Democracy been I'M
able to defeat any bll--appropriaton or 9TH
erwise-that has been introduced into Con
gress We challenge denial of this fact
And it is upon this undeniable fact that we
convict the Democracy Of permitting extrava-
CANT appropriations to pass through Congress
and to be approved by the President-swamp-
ing the national credit, and degrading and
disgracing the character of our Government
for honesty and integrity.
But let US examine the plea a little fur
Their. In the Congress to which they allude
the Congress before the last-no party, in
point of fact, had majority. They were
~. 4 mn RannhlI-
cans, and Democrats having an alb
solute majority of the whole body. A Black
Republican Speaker was elected. 1t IS true
but it was done, after two months wrangllng,
by adopting the plurality rule, (which by
the way was moved by Tennessee DEM
ocratD
Therefore, no party can be held RESPONSE
BILE for extravaganza, 30 far as the House OF
Representatives is concerned. But when
we get to the Senate we find II large Demo-
cratic majority, there-and the Senate pass
ed the same bill that the House of Representa-
tives did. What party was responsible in
the Senate?
When the Appropriation Bills reached the
President they were signed and approved by
that officer What party is responsible for
that? If Mr.. Pierce was ever anything else
than Democrat, we have yet to learn the
fact. So that, even upon the only possible
point of defence that the Democracy put ill.,
we see that they are equally as guilty rs If
they had openly confessed their sins, and
penitentially acknowledged their numerous
transgressions.
Let us look into the matter little further.
The Congress before the last did make ex-
travagant appropriations. The Democracy
say-absurdly enough. as we have just
shown-that it was because the Opposition
had majority in the House of Representa-
tyes. But what was the result? The re-
suit was that the Administration act"aly
erpended ten million Of dOliWs more MdM
Congress- appropriated Now, this is n fact
not generally knUwn-but 1t IL as true as
Holy Writ The next Congress which sue
ceeded that in which they had al Opposition
majority in the House Of Representatives as
the Democracy assert) passed Deficiency
Bill for upwards IF ten millions Of dollars.
The Democracy complain Of the extravaganza
of BLACK Republican Congress" they
not only spent all that BLACK Republican"
Congress appropriated, but ten million dol
lars besideM Under thesese circumstances
are we not justified in denominating the
leaders of the Democracy sweet set-sie
sweetest set of patriots that ever hourished
in the tide of time?
Now, how the leaders of the Democracy can
have the "cheek," the brazen effrontery--to
deny their responsibility for the extravaganza
of the Government is. indeed, wonder
Lynchbury IHyiniom.