The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-20
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1866.
THE VETO.

Occasoned so profound q sensation as the intel
lligence published IN CHE EVENING TELE-
GRAPH of yesterday, that the President OF the
United States had seen ct TO exercise his Con-
stitutional prerogative, and return without his
signature the "Freedmen's Bureau Bill"
The news of this action of Mr.. JOHNSON,
coupled with revocation OF the order sup
pressing the Richmond Examiner, has natu-
rally caused the ntensest excitement in poll
tieGl circ es, which has spread itself far be-
yond the official rings which usually take
interest in Congressional proceedings. AL
though rumors have been afoat for over a
week that that was the intention of the Exc
cutive, yet, as they came principally through
Democratic channels, the Union party
doubted that they we're the authorized utter
ances of the President. Mr.. JOHNSON
has signifed his opposition to the bill in
every form. A more emphatic veto has never
been sent to the National Congress. The
arguments advanced by him are of the
greatest magnitude. ~ ! he causes which
led to the adoption" Of the bill are of
equally vital importance. When, therefore.
the great branches OF our Government enter
into conflict Of opinion IN regard to an i'm
portant pull lie measure, it i'll becomes the Jour
nalists OF our land to decide on the merits OF the
case without careful delberation. 1t is,
therefore, not our intention in the present
article to advocate or oppose the measure
but merely to condense the reasons given by
his Excellency in his message, which, how
ever the reader may differ in regard to its
soundness of sentiment all must admit to be q
powerfully written State paper.
Let us give in few worde the arguments
of Mr.. JOHNSON, without urging any of the
replies which could be made by the advocates
of the bill. Let us, In fact, filter the docu-
ment and give the gist of the whole in half-a-
dozen paragraphs.
He is opposed to it because it is unneces-
sary, as the Bureau created by the act of
March, 1866, has not yet ceased to exist.
1t creates military Jurisdiction over
large portion of the United States, and gives
authority to step between the freedman and
his employer and regulate his contract, when
it is possible that the agent is ignorant of the
necessities or justice of the case.
1t makes 1t proper for a citizen to be ar
rested for iniurng black, to be tried before
a court-martial, convicted, and sentenced,
thus violating that provision OF the Constitu-
ton which prescribes that sin ali criminal
proceedings the accused shall eniov the right
to speedy and public trial by an impartial
jury of the State or districG wherein the crime
shall have been committed"
1t entrusts to the President too much
power for any one man to exercise in a re-
public, and enables him to WELD immense
patronage for sinister and improper political
purposes.
1t provides for giving homesteads to blacks,
and educating them, when Congress has never
furnished o precedent for any such action
even IN the case of orphans of soldiers.
1t would make the support ofa vast number
of INDECENT people by the United States per-
manent department oil the Government.
1t would make mill ary rule in the South
ern States permanent policy of the United
States.
1t would create dissatisfaction in the South
ern States, and tend to cause rebellion on the
part of the whites
1t seizes on property without due process
of law.
1t is unjust to the States most affected, be-
cause it was passed when they were not re-
presented, and hence is an imposition on them
by legislation in which they were allowed to
take no part.
And lastly, it is unnecessary, because, "with
the Federal courts restored and those of the
several States in the full exercise of their
functions the rights and Interests ofall classes
of the people WILL with the aid OF the military
in cases of resistance to the law, be essentially
protected against unconstitutional infringe
ment and violation" Such is a condensed
statement OF the arguments advanced by Mr.
JOHNSON.
We have carefully compiled the opinions o
each of the leading journals of our own and
our sister cites, which we append as a fan
exposition of the different lights in which The
action is viewed by the various parties.
The Inquirer says:-
"The president ex presses his resret at being com
PEELED TO dissent from the views OF Congress as !
regards the features the bill. and deems |
inconsistent with the oubnc welfare to give III
measure ms approval. He considers that the pOwe
which Is conferred upon the Executive by the enact
ment sach as, times of peace, certain y, ough
never to be intrusted to any one man
"Aeain In a nasty glance over the message, at al
hour too late to do 1t justice, we conclude that tn
President considers the bill as too expensive tina
Its "a uslation Is not required, and huay that II
uncons itutonal. he argues the question: and sub
ieots seVeTa secuOns 20 close yss and thinks tn
bI ! when examined IN detall, open TO weight oh
jeo ions F."
The Press in a letter from Occasional