New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-29

professions of a desire to reform and retrench.
For these criticisms, Senator'S have much
reason they are not only justified in making
but it is their duty to make them. To crlti-
else. however, is one thing; to block the
wheels of government is another and quite du-
ferent thing, which the Senate is doing to some
extent already by its persistence and the con-
sequent delay of public business, and which 1t
is in danger of doing completely if It's gives
the Democratic House an opportunity to cast
upon the Senate the responsibility for final dls-
agreement, under circumstances which may be
| turned to partisan advantage.
| The truth is that the Constitution obviously
| intends to give to the popular branch OF Con
| gress the initiative in matters OF taxation ana
expenditure That branch holds the purse III
is unnecessary to show how this view OF the
relative position of the two houses descended
to us naturally from British institutions; 1T Is,
in fact, consonant with republican ideas that
when the people want an increase or decrease
of taxes or of expenditures, and express that
| desire through the house which the more
quickly reflects the popular will, that VIII
should be obeyed. The power of the Senate,
in respect To taxes and appropriations is not
unlike the veto power OF the President; II
should be used rather to restrain excuses than
to force upon the country burdens or expendi-
| lures which the people do not desire, anu III
any case should be used sparingly, with
| moderation, and only upon sufficient
emergency But in this case the
Senate has shown some disposition to com
mence struggle, not upon the graver and more
vital matters, but upon comparatively unlm-
portant details, and not in the interest OF
economy, but to compel increased expenditure.
UnquestiOnably the people elected the present
House in part because they wanted severe and
sweeping retrenchment. BE the demand wise
or unwise, it cannot be opposed by the Senate
consistently with the spirit of our Institutions.
1t is very true that some of the s0-called
reforms are miSchevous changes. Yet the
people elected this House, and intrustcd 1t with
the power to propose modes of retrenchment.
If it is not competent, if 1t knows no better
than to waste at the hung and save at the
spigot, if it is so Indifferent to the public good
as to endanger the efficiency of the service
in some respects, 1t is best that the people
should find out that fact. But they will learn
it only by experience. Meanwhile, we have
no later expression of their will than the eiec-
tlOn OF the House, anu III tutl l'tiiy hVh'''""
essential changes in the character of the service,
il is hardly the thing for the Senate to resist.
In a party sense, resistance will he somewhat
dangerous The people still feel that vast
sums of money are wasted, that their Govern
ment costs too much, that in some way, and
probably III many ways, there ought to be
changes in the character of the service. Is 1t
wise for the Senate to enable the Democrats
to say, ave did our best but whenever We
proposed to lop of a useless Office, or to cut
down salary to a figure more appropriate
in hard times, we found the Senate obst-
"nately declaring that we would cripple the
" Government" Would it not be wiser, IA
well as more consistent with the spirit of orr
institutions, to give full swing to such diSpo-
sition as there is in the House to reform and
retrench, and then to hold members responsible
for errors of omission and commission To
this complexion it will doubtless come at last.
But the Senate may lose much by undue per-
sistcncc, even in opposing erroneous measures.