Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-29

NHtAItI tut IlOuHt OI
has attached legislation to supply bills
during the last two centuries We rep.
resent American citizens, not British
subjects. We are dealing with an Amer
lean President, not British king. The
Executive i'll this country has no pre-.
rogative in the monarchial sense of the
term; he has only certain powers con.
fcrred upon him by n written Constitu.
tion and by statute; but when he threat
ems TO abuse that power, if he should
ever make such threat, for the pur.
pose of defeating legislation admitted to
be deliberate, constitutional and not
injuring his rightful authority, all the
means which the House OF Commons in
England was justiiiable in using to pre-.
vent an abuse of the kings prerogative
we are equally justiiiable in employing
here. 1t is true, Mr.. Chairman, that
for nearly two hundred years the prac-
ticc Of lacking on supply bills or nc-
companying such bills with petitions for
redress of grievances has not been re.
sorted to in England, but the House Of
Commons, to which alone that right be.
longs, has never by any act or declara
ton abandoned or surrendered it. And
bFE W VI
historical fact equally pertinent in this
discussion, which is, that for nearly the
same length of time the veto power has
not been exercised in England. Since
1907, when the Queen vetoed the Scotch
Militia bill, no British sovereign has
vetoed an act of the British Parliament.
II j., in fact, the veto power that has
died in that country. IL could not live
in the presence of that great principle
of the British Constitution which dis.
solves the Ministry in every conflict be.
tween the Crown and the Commons.
The executive power there is directed
by cabinet of ministers and not by the
king, and in the whole world there is
not to be found a body of men in au.
thority more sensitive to the popular
will than they are. In the face of
vote of want of confidence or an adverse
vote on an important Government
measure, they disappear IA if they had
been smitten by the arm of Omnip.
otence itself. Any sovereign who should
now attempt to retain "A ministry in op
position to the will of the Commons or
to persist in any important measure of
government which did not meet their
approval would certainly imperil the
peace OF the kingdom, if he did not
lose his crown. But my eloquent and
learned friend from Virginia Mr. Tuck.
erj has 80 fully and clearly stated the
character OF the British Govern ment in
this respect that nothing can be usefully
added to what he has said. We are
told, however, that the grievance of
which we complain is n law upon the
statute book from which suppose the
inference il TO be drawn that 1T il not
grievance for which the Executive is
responsible, and therefore we have no
right to make its redress condition
upon which we grant supplies OF money
to be expended by that department of
the Government. This statement omits
the important and controlling fact that
the statute OF which we complain is one
which authorizes the Executive to send
thousands of his subordinate officers 10
the polls to interfere with our elections
as members of this House and IL is
just cause of complaint against him
that he insists upon maintaining and
exercising such dangerous and uncon.
stitutIonal power. The exclusive power
to originate money bills-which include
appropriation billz-belongs under the
Constitution to this body. This gives
us the right and makes il our duty TO
determine when, under what circum.
stances, for what purposes and to what
amount we will propose the appropria.
ton OF the peoples money. If we have
not this right, II this is not our duty, il
Congress is a mere machine to be set in
motion by the hands Of the Executive
to grind out such appropriations as may
be recommended. then we are clearly
wrong in this controversy asd the gen.
tlemen on the other side are right.
But If the Constitution has conferred
this power upon us we are not wrong
unless we abuse it and for that we are
responsible, not to the Executive, not
to the minority here on this floor. but to
the people who sent us here. Upon all
questions of this chaeacter they are the
exclusive and final judges. A great
writer upon institutional law has said
Whenever question arises between the
society Mt large and any magistrate vested
with powers originally delegated by that
society II must b. decided by that society
itself. There is not upon earth any other
tribunal to resort to.
II unfortunately this proposed lcgis.
lation shall fail by reason OF au irrecon.
cilable difference OF opinion between the
executive and legislative departments
Of the Government, both must appeal tn
the original source Of their power and
abide the result. II is revolutionary 10
join in this appeal rather than surren.
der our conscientious convictions upon
a subject virtally affecting our own priv.
ileges and the liberties of our constitu.
ents, the country will rebuke us and we
will be compelled to bow in submission
to its judgment. Now. air. let us see
whether these laws are Of such char.
acter as to justify us in taking the posi-.
ton we have in demanding their repeal.
will endeavor to show, Mr.. Chairman.
as briefly as the nature Of the subject
will permit, that they are so opposed TO
the spirit of our institutions, so repug.
nant to the Constitution itself and 80
oppressive upon the people that we are