Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1879-04-17
Free Consent In Legislation.

General Garfield spoke of free consent
as the granite foundation of our whole
political structure. Nothing" said he
'in this Republic can be law that has
not the consent of the House, the free
consent of the Senate, and the free con-
sent of the Executive. Or, if the Execu-
tive refuses his free consent, then ii
must have the free consent of two
thirds of each body" While not in terms
denying the correctness of this doctrine
the Democrats refuse to recognize its
practical force; and yet it is, in fact, a
conclusive argument against the course
which they have threatened to pursue in
case the President should veto their pro-
posed legislation. 1t is expressly pro.
vided in the Constitution that if the
President approve" bill presented to
him for signature, 'he shall sign it, but
if not, he shall return it with his OBJ
jections," etc. 1t thus appears that the
Constitution which he is sworn to sup
port explicitly requires him-for the
verb shalt is mperatiye-to return with
his objections any bill he dsesrnet
approve. Now, what is the meaning OF
the word approve? Evidently it does
not refer to the mechanical act Of affix
ing his signature to a bill, for the act OF
signing is made contingent on approval
IF he approve, he shall sign it," is the
language used 1t is clear that the verb
approve" refers to mental act and is
used in the sense embodied in Webster's
first definition, "to be pleased with, to
think well Of" Hence, an attempt to
force the President to sign bill which
he does not think well of is an attempt
to make him disobey plain injunction
of the Constitution. Of course, the
Presidents approval should not depend
upon individual caprice or mere partisan
feeling. If he should veto an important
measure upon such grounds, he would
invite oblivion for himself and defeat
| for his party; but when his objections to
bill are based upon an honest convic
tiOn that it contains provisions inimical
to the public interests, his plain consti
tutional duty is to return it, with his
objections, to the House which it = =
originated" and allow an opportunity
| Gf it be not passed over his veto) to di-
vest it of its Objectionable features, and
submit it to him again in modified
form.
The President cannot be presumed to
know that Congress will refuse to dc
this. Knowing that the objections he
has to offer are not such as to interpOse
any obstacle to the final passage of ne
cessary appropriation bills, he cannot
suppose that his veto will prevent such
bills from being passed. He cannot i'm
pugn the patriotism of Congress so faI
as to assume that his obedience to the
Constitution will be used by that body
as a pretext for leaving the Government
without the means of reforming its
proper functions. He has to do with his
own constitutional duty, and he has nc
right to shirk it on the assumption that
his performance to it will lead to unpa-
triotic, and perhaps unconstitutional
action by Congress. For the action OF
that body he is in no wise responsible
and his judgment on the merits of bill
melled by considerations as to what that
action will be.
In the next general election it will de
volve upon the people to decide upon
any disagreement that may arise be
tween Congress and the President re.
specting the election laws or other mat.
ters. 1t can hardly be supposed that the
people will be pleased with the effort OF
Congress to prevent the matter from be-
ing referred to them at all; for they
know that in such cases of disagreement
the right of decision constitutiOnally be-
longs to them. OF that right they can
not be deprived if the President stands
firm, and it is for the Democratic major.
ity in Congress to judge whether they
can afford to prejudice their case by put
ting the country to incalculable trouble
in bootless effort to prevent it submis-
sion. The sovereign people of the Uni.
ted States will not approve an attempt
to Anglicize our Constitution without
giving them any opportunity to say yea
or nay.-[N. Y. Tribune.