The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1879-05-10

stand or fall according to its own merits.
! If it were understood that to attach to an
appropriation a measure irrelevant to the
| general object of the bill would imperil and
| probably prevent its final passage and
approval, valuable reform in the parlia-
mentary practice of congress would be
accomplished. The best justification that has
been offered for attaching irrelevant riders
to appropriation bills is that it is done for
convenience's sake, to facilitate the passage
of measures which are deemed expedieat
by all branches of the government
which participate in legislation. 1t
cannot be claimed there is any such
ment OF the election law to army
appropriation bills. The history of the
measure contradicts this assumption. A
majority of the house of representatives in
| the last congress was in favor of section six
of this bill. 1t was known that majority of
the senate was opposed to it, and that as
separate measure it could not be
| adopted. 1t was attached to the army ap-
preparation bill to compel the senate to as
sent to it. 1t was plainly announced to the
senate that the army appropriation bill
would not be allowed to pass unless the
proposed amenements to the election law
were adopted with it. The senate refused
to assent to the bill on account of this irrele-
want section. Congress thereupon ad-
journed without passing the APP
preparation bill for the army, and
congress became necessary to furnish means
to carry on the government. The ground
upon which the action of the house of
representatives is defended is distinctly
stated by many of Its advocates.
A week before the close of the last session
of congress, the doctrine in question was
stated by one of it's ablest defenders, as tol-
/ = al &c
not worth while to attempt to repeal except
upon the appropriation bill. The Republican
senate would not sgree to have the Repub-
lican president sign bill for such repeal.
! Whatever objection to legislation upon ap-
preparation bills may be made in an ordi-
nary case does not apply where free cleo
tons and the liberty of citizens are con-
cerned. We have the power to vote money.
Let US annex the conditions to it, and insist
| upon the redress of grievance" By an
other distinguished member of the house
it was said: "The right of representatives
of the people to withhold supplies is as old
as English liberty. History records numer-
GUS instances where the Commons, feeling
that the people were opposed by laws that
the lords enacted, ana would not consent to
repeal by ordinary means of legislation,
obtained redress at last by refusing appro-
priations unless accompanied by relief
measures"
That question, of gravest magnitude, and
new in this country, was raised by this
course of proceeding, and was fully recog-
nized also by its defenders in the senate. 1t
was said by distinguished senator: Per.
| haps no greater question in the form We are
| brought to consider it, was ever considered
| by an American congress in time of peace,
| for it involves not only the merits and de-
merits of the laws which the house bill pro-
| tn hnf hQ rio 70 bo
privileges, the powers, the duties OF the two
branches of congress and of the president of
| the United States. tits question, the i'm
portance of which can scarcely be estimated.
1t is a question that never yet has been
| brought so sharply before an American
congress, and the American people as it may
| be now. 1t is a question which sooner or
later must be decided, and the decision
must determine what are the powe of the
house of representatives under the constitu-
ton, according to its letter and its spirit.
Mr.. President, L should approach this ques-
ton if | were in the best possible condition
! to speak, and certainly with the utmost
! anxiety, for no one can think over
it as long and carefully as i have
| thought of it, without seeing that we are at
the beginning, perhaps, of a struggle that
may last as long in this country as a similar
| struggle in what we are accustomed to call
the Wonderland. That struggle lasted for
! two centuries before it was ultimately de-
cided. 1t is not likely to last so long here,
| but it may last until every man in this cham
Der is in his grave. 1t is question whether
or no the house of representatives has a
right to say we will grant supplies only on
condition that grievances are redressed.
| We are the representatives of the tax-pay-
ers of the republic. We, the house of rep
resentatives, alone, have the right to origi.
nate money bills. We, the house of
representatives, have alone the right to
originate bills which grant the money of the
| people. The senate represents the states
| We represent the tax payers of the repub-
lie. We therefore, by the very terms of the
constitution, are charged with the duty of
originating bills which grant the money of
the people. We claim the right which the
house of commons in England established
| after two centuries of contest, to say that
we will not grant the money of the people
unless there is redress of grievances"
Upon the assembling of this congress, in
pursuance of the call for an extra session,
which was made necessary by the failure of
the 45th congress to make needful sppropri-
atoms for the support of the government,
the question was presented whether the at
| tempt made In the last congress to engraft,
| by construction, new principle upon the
| constitution should be persisted in or not
This congress has ample opportunity and
| time to pass appropriation bills, and also to
enact any political measures which NAV be
determined upon by separate bills, by the
usual and orderly methods of proceedings.
But majority of both houses have deemed
it wise to adhere to the principle asserted
and maintained in the last congress by a
majority of the house of representatives.
That principle is that the house of repre-
sentatlves has the sole righe to originate
| bills for raising revenue, and therefore has
| the right to withhold appropriations upon
| which the existence of the government NAV
depend, unless the senate and president
shall give their assent to any legislation
which the house may see fit to attach to ap-
preparation bills. To establish this
principle is to make a radical. dan.
gerous and unconstitutional change in
| the character of our institutions. The yari-
| GUS departments of the government and
army and navy are established by the con.
st1tuilon or by the laws passed in pursuance
| thereof. Their duties are clearly defined
ana their support is carefully provided for
| by law. The money required for this pur.
| pose has been collected from the people and
is now In the treasury, ready te be paid out
as soon as the appropriation bills are passed.
whether appropriations are made or not,
the collection of taxes will go on; the pub
lie money will accumulate in the treasury
1t was not the intention Of the trainers of
tne CONSTITUTION tnat any single branch OF
the government should have power to die
tate the conditions upon which this treasure
should be applied to the purposes for which
it was collected. Any such intention, if it
had been entertained, would have been
plainly expressed in the constitution.
That a majority of thesepate now concurs
| IN the claim of the house, adds to the gravity
| of the situation, but does not alter the ques.
ton at issue. The new doctrine if main
! 70 ln6
unchecked and despotic power in the house
of renrpGentafiyas hare maioritu of the