National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-05-06
ENGLISH GRANTS AND AMERICAN AP-
pHDpKIATIONS.

Our recent article on English Grants
and our Grant" " states so clearly and con-
cisely the difference between the duty of
Congress to make necessary appropriations
to sustain q republican form of govern
ment and the right of an English Parlia-
ment to refuse grants of money to the
Crown, or to grant it conditionally upon
redress of grievances, that it places the
Democratic Statesmen who have been so
eloquent in asserting the English method
of coercion rs one of the Great Bulwarks
I" of American Liberty" in most ridicu-
lous light before intelligent people. There
should be logical parallel between the
English and American methods of redress
ing grievances if the Democratic position
is tenabl.. The English method is legis-
lative admission that neither the House
of Commons, nor the Lords, can redress
a grievances of the people, and that the
redress Of grievances is prcrogative of the
Crown The sovereign is the grand al
mOner of the nation. The feudal principle
still maintains to limited extent The
sovereign is the lord, and the people, though
no longer called vassals, are still subjects,
owing true faith and allegiance to
their sovereign, The old feudal doctrine
required the vassal to support his lord.
Since the abolishment of feudal tenure
this doctrine no longer maintains hence,
in modern times, the people represented in
Parliament-and they are not the whole
peOple-grant the revenues derived by tax
alton of the whole people to the Crown,
with whatever coerciye conditions the
lower house may desire to annex to the
grant. The grant being made and the con-
dition being complied with, there is free
dom from accountability for expenditure of
the money very different from the account
ability of our fiscal agents to Congress for
moneys appropriated This English method
of obtaining redress Of grievancesis, happily,
obsolete, but at the times in which it was
resorted to the words grants of money"
were rs correct in phraseolOgy as the method
of coercion was sound in principle. To
make that obsolete principle logically ap-
plicable to Congressional appropriations our
Chief Executive would have to be clothed
with the prorogatiyes of an English mon
arch of feudal or semi-feudal times. lie
should be recognized, in theory at least, as
the fountain of all justice, "as the "nurtur-
{" ing father" of his leal and true subjects,
as lord 10 whom they would humbly sue
for redress of wrongs, and for whom, "as in
"duty bound, they will ever pray" SC.
We Americans do not pray TO any human
being to redress our grievances. Our demo-
cratic Representatives in Congress cannot be
permitted to recognize, in theory or in fact,
any alleged Anglo-Saxon heritage that
would clOthe n republican magistrate with
the prerogatives ofan English monarch. 1t
is bad enough that the majority of them
represent an unlawful privileged-elass rule,
without their bold attempt to impregnate
our legislation with obsolete feudal prin-
ciples.
If the American people have a grievanc @
they know its redress is their own preroga-
tive and they have not yet delegated TO
! Congress the right to "grant" money to the