Delaware inquirer. (Wilmington, Del.) 1859-18??, 1860-01-14

the sanction OF the Legislative department oil
the Government by II majority equal TO that
by which this bill passed our Legislature in
1857, having been either vetoed by the quail
fed negative or nullifed by this absolute mega
tive or regal power.
Notwithstanding the bill passed the Lcgisla-
turc unanimously, Gov Causey gave TO it anab-
solute negative. 1t was thereby nullfed. The
question is, had he u right to do it? For the
same question is now up again. lie had the
power beyond all question, and did it by with
holding his approval of the bill. And the
power TO do ghalways and necessarily carries
with it the polcer TO do wrong. But does the
poorer to do right or wrong, erer carry with it
the right to do wrong?
Our first parents had the poorer TO eat the
forbidden fruit but had they the rgh: to do it?
Charles I, and James II, had the porerto do as
they did. Had they the right? Mr.. Causcy
had the pOper to refuse to fill any of the Offices
which became vacant during his term Had
he the right? A man may have the Power to
murder another or burn his house. Has he the
rWht2 Or, he may have the Po'rer to abuse
and maltreat his own wife and children. Has
he the right? The truth is, there is great
difference between the poTer to do thing and
he right to do that thing And it will not do
to undertake to maintain that Porer, however
unlimited and absolute, givesnght to do wrong
The Trainers of our present Constitution never
meant to confer upon our Governor any such
n right, know every one of them personally,
and there was not one of them whom could
suspect of any such intention. Gov. Causey,
therefore, cannot be excused much less justi-
fed, in multiplying that bill on the mere ground
that he had the porer to do il?
| On what ground then?
One of his arologists said to me, that, al
though the bill had passed the Legislature nj
| raj, eli M
with certainty that the people were in favor of
such change in the Constitution, and IT ought
not be altered against their wish answer,
| First, That the National Government, nor
any other government where the veto power
exists, would ever have any law enacted by
the Legislative department, except over the
veto, if the President or Executive had to he
first certain that the people were in favor of
each particular law before he gave to II his
approval.
Second Congress, or any other Legislature,
could never pass any law Of any Importance
through either House, il every member had to
he certain before he voted for it that the peo-
pie desired that particular law.
Third, That the passage of bill by Congress
or any Legislature unanimously, or next thing
to it, is at least pTimd ftcid or strong presunp-
tive evidence that the people are not opposed
to it.
Fourth, Surprising, contrary to the facts,
that our Constitution permitted such bill TO
pass by bare majority, and that this bill had
so passed and supposing also, contrary TO the
fact, that its approval by the Governor las is
the case of the approval of any bill by the
President, which had passed Congress by
bare majority would have completed and per-
fected the amendment, and made it a part of
the Constitution without any further action
of the people or the Legislature; then, in that
case. a reasonable doubt Of the Governor as to
tho wish of the people in regard thereto, might
have afforded some ground for him to nulltty
ii Prordcd, he had the tyH to do itY But no
one of these supposed facts exist in this case.
The Constitution does not permit such bill
to pass our Legislature by bare majority, nor
by any majority less than two-thirds; and, in
fact, this bill actually got majority of nine
tcnths of the whole Legislature. Nor would
his approval Of bill of this kind have made il
any part of the Constitution. The only effect
of such approval would have been to allow the
people the opportunity to exercise their con-
stitutional right of making their will known
when they elected the members of the next
Legislature If they were opposed to it, ttcy
would not have elected even II majority Of both
Houses in favor of il, much less majority OF
three-fourths of each branch, as required by
the Constitution, before the bill could amount
to anything.
The amount of this npologists excuse is, that
though the Legislature elected by the people,
had passed the hill almost unanimously, Mr..
Causey did not know, or was not certain, as to
the peoples wishes in regard to it, and there
fore, he prevented the very means provided by
the Constitution for ascertaning their will, by
multiplying the bill.
This plea of ignorance, as an excuse for an
act, when the person who committed II pre-
vented and defeated the proper and constitu-
tional means of information and knowledge, is
emphatcally pleading one wrong in justiliri-
| ton of another.
Another apologist said, he had counsellor
who advised him to nullify it. So had our first
parents counsellor who advised them to eat
the forbidden fruit. Did that make it TghtI
| Was il any excuse? So had Charles ]. and
james II. counsellors who advised them to do
as they did. But did that make their conduct
rght2 To attempt to excuse wrong because it
was advised by evil counsellors, is as bad it not
worse, even than the other excuse. IL is II
second attempt to plead one wrong in iustilca-
| ton of another.
A third apologists said, that GOV. Causey
had appointed majority of the present judici-
ary to the positions they now hold; that they
were his friends, favorites and pets; that he
was not willing to do any act which might re-
suit in their being turned out of office, as most
likely would be the case II he approved the DILL
For the reason that the bill was to go into OPP
Grafton under another Governor, and 1t was
probable ut the then approaching election the
Democrats would elect their candidate, anu
then others would be appointed in theirplaces.
This was worse than either Of the other ex-
cuses il possible. What was it to him in the
discharge of his sworn duty, who was elected
his successor? Had not the people the right
to elect for their Governor, whom they pleas
ed? Have they not also the right to amend
their Constitution, even throughand by means
of the Legislature and without convention,
when they please although it should result III
the turning out of Mr. Causey's pets? Even
in England, where the Queen has this
same absolute negative or multiplying power,
and although she has the selecting and reno
val, at pleasure, of her own minstcrs-even
there. if bill passes both Houses of Parlia-
ment, even by large majority, she has to zap
prove" the bill, lit isdead-it is rulliied it she
do not) however much she and her ministers
: be opposed to it and though her ministers be
her particular favorites and pets, and she NAV
desire ever so much to retain them, yet I'll :.
have to 90 out of office and Others take tliril
places. But in this State, in the year A, p
1858, our Governor did what no King or Queen
of England, in full possession OF the same con-
stitutiOnal power, dare do for more than hun
dred and fifty years He actually by his owl
sic uolo, sic Julio, nulilied an act passed by tlt
| Legislative department of the government al
most unanimously And this, too, when til,
effect of such qualification would be, not to as
, certain. but to defeat the peoples wishes, rnt
prevent them from being ascertained, ana VIII
t the further effect of perpetuating life-tenure'
rl En-. far