Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-02-13

| lncy arc Lne MINUS VI Gne DAeCuJlVe, anu
| liberty permits no brute force to Overawe
or dictate. If the Commander of the Ar
my is the mailed hand of the Executive, is
| not the Secretary of State also his hand
gloved in silk? And is there more danger
| from the iron hand than the silken glove?
But II it be proper to call in the Cabinet,
why not call in the Supreme Court, or its
CHIEF? Do the committee wish to copy the
British precedent, where the law lords car
advise, though they do not vote with the
legislator? Why not then admit the Chief
Justice? Ask him of the legality of confis-
cation, legal tender, belligeiency, and the
new questions which this civil war is caus-
ing? The committee refer us, with smile,
no doubt from its complaisant chairman, to
Hayti forour guidance. '[Laughter.l That
precedent was intended for the other side
OF the House. | accept it in all earnest
ness. In Hayti the Secretary of State and
the grand judge are, by the constitution, the
orators charged with representing the ex-
ecutive by oral communication tn BE- tn
houses. Why not send for Mr.. Chase, along
with Mr.. Seward, and here let them strug-
gle for the next Presidency before the peo-
pies Representatives?
The committee inform us that if the rules
he defective, or limit too narrowly the right
of debate, changes can hereafter be made.
They take tire British House of Commons
for their model, and they assert that the
''rules now recommended are almost iden-
tical." If that be the case, the changes
should involve an entirely new system of
accountability among the departments of
our Government. Indeed, our form of gov
ernment will need radical change. Judge
Storysays Commentaries, page 329) that
"The whole structure of our Government is so en-
| a Of tVh
posed are so dissi imar from that Of England. that
no argument can be drawn from the practice of the
after to assist Us in just arrangement Of the
| i've authority"
| In England one branch of Parliament
the Commons, is ostensibly supreme. If
not corrupted or made dependent on the
Crown by intimidation, it is the ruling
| power of the realm. Though the Crown
may appoint the ministry, it is the Parlia-
ment which dethrones them by vote 'of
want of confidence" There is no respon-
sibility for any act of administration upon
the Crown. The sanctity of the Crown for
bids it to be wrong. Ministers are toppled
| over, but the throne remains; hence the
| real power, If notcorrupted over the Exec
utive is in the Commons. The ministry is
| the fountain of honor and patronage in
fact, though the Crown may be in name;
hence the prutescent corruptions which
have made the history of English legisla-
ton so infamous. Not so in this country.
We have no ministry here, no premier
The Cabinet have power and do advise the
President but he, and not Congress, can
| alone displace them. Hence in our system
the President has the power of the Crown
and the ministry both, and is above the
reach of the Commons or the Congress.
In England the queen only has the power
to name the ministry; the Parliament has
the power to direct its policy and compel
its resignation; yet this measure would ellp
hance the power of the President, making
him not only king and ministry, but po-
tental in the Legislature. Add to this
his power to appoint judges, and the ten
dency is to unite all functions in one, which,
as | have said, is the definition Of tyranny.
If the committee would then assimilate our
practice to English rules, let them alter the
Constitution, and require the Cabinet to be
responsible to Congress, and the President
and his Cabinet to dbdicate when his policy
is condemned. When you do this you
change the very essence of our Govern
ment. .-.H... ....
The President represents the aggregate
people; Congress represents States in the
Senate, and the people of the States in the
House. He is elected for four years. We
take him for better or for worse. We may
have Congress in opposition to his policy
for four years; and nothing we can do will
prevent it, unless we by usurpation and by
a corrupt judiciary intrench on his powers
or he, by intrigue and usurpation and OBJ
sequious judges is enabled to rob Congress
of its powers. He may appoint judges, veto
laws; that is the limit of his control over
the Legislature and the judiciary. If his
agents approach the fountain, and there at
Il
of law, he becomes an intermeddler. Wheth-
er he does this by his military force or his
cunning management, it amounts to the
same thing. Wisely, therefore, our fathers,
looking on English history at time when
a corrupt and imbecile ministry were illus
trating how easy it was for a stubborn king
to rule a subservient Parliament by the
presence of great minister or strong
will, forbade the membership of the Adj
mi Aistration in the House, and for a strong
er reason should have forbidden their pres
ence there. They saw, as an old writer
says, "the king and his council Craftsman,
No. 440) by means of his liverics and re-
tainers, bring the whole kingdom to be of
his livery;" or, as Lord Bolingbroke said to
Walpole, they made the Parliament like
slaves in galley, united by their chains
and tugging the oar together at the sound of
the ministerial whistle. Seeing this in Eng
land, as the very cause of their own troubles
with the parent country, they were jealous
of such influences here. They may not
have distrusted the first Presidents; but
they would not allow an opportunity for
the invasion of their own privileges or the
public liberties. Ii was not the attack they
feared from the first Executives which led
them to keep the administration aloof from
the Legislature, but they would not allow
the breach, however small, in the rampant,
through which an attack at some time might
be made. .H.
This principle, together with the English
practice, leads me, Mr.. Speaker, to be ieal-
Gus of our privileges and powers. Indeed,
sir, am not particularly eDamored of any,
thing English now. do not like English
delight over our troubles; English cannon
when found in Fort Fisher; English ships
ot-war destroying our commerce under a
hostile flag; English recognition of bellig-
erency. All that Is admirable i'm the Eng
lish manners, literature, and laws love and
cherish, but this system OF the committee is
neither admirable nor desirable. ~
If there is one feature In English history
more marked than another, it is the constant
conflict foh centuries between the kingly
prerogative and the parliamentary priyi-
lege. In the earlier times of the Plantage-
nets the motto obtained, that to be royal is
to be loyal; the will of the king to be the
will of the law: "Que ue,b le roy. ce ve,a la
iou" And although under the earlier Kings.
especially those most destitute of principle,
the liberty of the people in the Parliament
received Its most effieacious support; al
n l.. \ =,