Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1879-05-06
THE VETO POWER AND HOW IT
HAS BEEN EXERCISED.

from the time of Appius Claudlus ana ME-
MENUS Agrippa down to- the present day
There does not seem to be any great applica-
bility in all this "paddipg" to the question
which Congress will now have to decide as to
whether the President has overstepped the |
discretion reposed in him by the constitution |
in vetoing the army bill. The veto power of !
the President of the United States is unlike |
any other power of the sort that has ever
been conferred upon or asserted by an execu-
tive officer. The veto of the Tribune in the
Roman Republic was clearly a means of
popular defense, extorbcd by the commons
from the aristooratic orders, and used as
protection against the Senate and the con-
sus elected from tia Senate. The veto Of
the monarch in the constitutional governs
ments Of Europe Jon the other hand, when
exercised at oil, has ususlly been resorted to
rs means of defending the royal preroga
tive and the privileges of the patrician
orders against the incursions and assaults of
Democratic majority in the popular branch
of the legislature. The sovereigns of Eng
land, while always reserving the right of
veto, have seldom exercised 1.-THE date of
the last veto of an act of the British Parlia.
ment being 1862, in the reign of William
III. The veto power of tho President is not
like that of the tribune nor like that of the
king. In some respects il is what MIR. Bel
ford calls "tribunician" in its character, but
in others it pa rtakes of the nature of pre-
rogative. The Executive is a coordinate in
the government. He is sworn to protect and
defend the constitution, and in the exercise
of that prerogative (limited by the fact that
two-thirds vote of Congress can nullify it)
he must sign all bills and joint resolutions
| before they become laws or, if he should re-
| fuse to sign them, must return them with his
| objections to Congress. The objections set
forth in the message embodying the veto be-
come part Of the res gestre in the consider
| alton which the constitu ton requires Con-
gress to give the matter objected to before it
can be passed over the veto. A veto mes
sage is thus expected to contain new matter
or to suggest new views of q subject, and it
is also expected to be considered and dis
cussed just as the Presidents annual message
is. But the analogy between the Presidents
veto and that of the Roman tribune fails in
this: The tribune was exclusively popular
representative, but the lower house of Con-
gress is more popular in its character than
the executive Office, because it is elected d.
rectly by the people and comes more freshly
from the people Hence the "tribunician"
function. if it exists in our Republic, must
| at least be shared between the President and
| the popular branch of the legislature.
In the history of the United States the
exercise of the veto power has many curious
circumstances connected with it. There have
been but ninety three vetoes since the adop-
ton of the constitution, and many of these
were merely pro Jormd, to enable Congress
to recsify clerical errors or the like. The
power was very seldom exercised in the early
days of the government. Washington only
vetoed two bills, one because the matter of
it was impracticuble, the other because the
measure was unjust. John Adams never
vetoed a bill, nor did Jefferson. Madison
vetoed sig, one of which was pocket veto;
three because the measures we're unconstitu>
| Quincy Adams vetoed none. nor did Van
Buren,, Harrison, Taylor or Fillmore. jack
son vetoed eleven bills, chiefly for reasons
| growing out of his intense personality and
to enforce his strong political opinions. Ty-
| Ter vetoed nine bills, 10 a great measure be-
cause there was fragrant an tagonism between
him and Congress in regard to internal i'm
| provements and the tariff. Polk vetoed
three bills, Pierce nine. and Buchanan four.
but two of these were for mail contractors
relief Lincoln only vetoed one bill, and that
WAS joint resolution to correct clerical error
in revenue act, and only in order that all
errors in the act might be CO vered by the
resolution. Andrew johnson vetoed seven-
teen bills, the ntagonism between him and
Congress being persistent, but even he did
not veto any general appropriation bill.
President Grant vetoed no less than twenty
six bills, but the most Of these were trivial
matters, and the reasons assigned were vari
Gus, showing in a curious fashion the abso>
lutely non political character of his mind.
Mr. Hayes has vetoed four bills. There
have been but eight vetoes of general appro-
priation bills-three by Jackson. two by
Tyler, one by Polk, one by Pierce and one
by Hayes-but in every case but the last it
was a river and harbor appropriation, or
something of that sort, that was vetoed. Ip
no case before the present one has there
ever been veto of bill appropriating funds
for the maintenance of one of the great de.
partments of the government. Congress has