Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1860-06-28
The Special Message Of the President on the
Civil AppraPriation Bill.


To the HoHS. Of Representatives, Il have ap-
proved and signed the bill entitled 4" An act
making appropriation for sundry civil expenses
Of the Government for the year ending the 3oth
In notifying the House Of my approval Of this
bill, deem II proper under the peculiar circum-
stances of the case, to make a few explanatory
observations so that my course may not hereafter
be misunderstood.
Amid great variety Of important appropria-
lions, this bill contains appropriation 'fof the
completion Of the Washington adueduct, $500 COG,
| to be expended according TO the plans and est
| mates of Captain Mefgs, and under his supefin-
tendence: Provided that the office of engineer of
the Potomac Water Works Is hereby abolished,
| and its duties shall hereafter be discharged by
the chief engineer of the w ashington aqueduct 4"
| To this appropriation for a wise and beneficial
object have not the least objection IL Is true
had reason to believe when the last appropriation
was made of $500, 900. on the 18th June, 1855,
" for the oDapletion Of the Washington dqHedRct, -
| this would have been sufficient for the purpose
1t is now discovered, however, that 1t will REQ uire
half million more for the completion Of me
| Washington agvsdHct,n and this ought to be
granted
The Captain Meigs to whom the bill refers is
Montgomery C. Meigs, captain in the corps Of
engineers of the Army Of the United States, who
has superintendent this work from its commence
ment under the authority of the late and present
Secretary of War.
Had this appropriation been made in the usual
form no d. tficuty could have arisen upon 1t. This
bill, however, annexes declaration to the appro-
priation that the money is to be expended under
the superintendent of Capt. Meigs.
TIE first aspect in which this clause presented
itself to my mind was that ii interfered with the
right of the President to be Commander hief
of the A army and Navy of the United States" If
this lad really been the case there would have
been an end to the question. Upon further exam
ination ! deemed 1t impossible that Congress
could have intended to interfere with the clear
right of the President to command the army and
TO order its officers to any duty he might deem
farA -s.,A-.
could withdraw an officer from the command of
the President, and select him for the performance
of an executive duty, they might, upon the same
principle, annex to an appropriation to carry on
war condition requiring 1t not to be used for the
defense of the country unless particular person
Of its own selection should command the army
Ii was impOssi BILE that Congress could have had
such an Intention, and therefore, according to nv
ConstuctiOn of the clause in question, IL merely
designated Captain Meigs its preference for the
work, without intending TO deprive the President
OF the power to order him to any other army duty
for the performance of which he might consider
him better adapted Still whilst this clause may
not be, aud believe is not, a violation of the
Constitution, yet how destructive ii would be to
all proper subordination, and how demoralizing
It's effect upon the morale of the army If ii should
become precedent for future legislation Officers
might then be found, instead of performing their
appropriate duties, beseging the halls of Congress
Tor the purpose Of obtaining special favors and
choice places by Legislative enactment. Under
these circumstances, have deemed il but fair To
inform Congress that, whilst do not consider the
bill unconstitutional, this is only because in my
opinion, Congress did not intend by the language
which they have employed, to interfere with my
absolute authority to order Captain Meigs to any
other service might deem expedient NV perfect
rig BAT still remains, Notwithstanding the clause TO
send him away from w Washington to any part of
the MON to superintend the erection of fortit-
cation or on any other appropriate duty
1t has been alleged, | think without sufficient
cause, that this clause is unconstitutional because
1t has created new Office and has appointed Cap
tain Mei9s to perform its duties If II had done
this, itwOuld have been clear question, because
Congress have no right to appoint to any office
this being specially conferred upon the President
and Senate Ii is evident that Congress intended
nothing more by this clause than to express a de-
cided opinion that Captain Megs should be con
tinued in the employment to which he had been
previously assigned by competent authority.
1t Is not improbable that another question of
grave importance may arise out of this clause is
the appropriation conditional and will it fail pro-
vlded do not deem ii proper that il shall be ex-
pended under the superintendence of Captain
Meigs' This Is a question which shall receive
serious consideration; because upon its decision
may depend whether the completion Of the water
works shall be arrested for another season. 1t Is
not probable that Congress could have intended
that this great and important work shonld depend
upon the various casualties and vicsstudes Incl
dent TO the natural or official life of single officer
OF the Army. This would be to make the work
subordinate to the man and not the man to the
work, and to reverse our great automatic rule of
'Principles, not men" / desire to express no
opinion upon the subject. Should the question
ever arise, 1t shall have my serious consideration
~ JAMES BUCHANAN.
WASHINGTON, June 26, 1850.