New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-06-18
cnrcprsS ~ INTERPRETATIONS

Congress forces upon the President ana Ine
country a sharply defined issue. Fortu-
nately ali DISCUSSES and complications We're
stripped off in the Senate, and the naked
question presented is this: Can one house
nullify q law of the United States For il
the right is cOeXtensive with the physical
power one house can prevent an apprOpria-
ton of money as well as both houses; and If
n law of the United States can be nullified
by the refusal of an appropriation required
by that law for its enforcement, either house
can nulhfy a law, though it requires the
assent Of both houses and the President or
of both houses BY twO-thirdS vote, to repeal
that law. 1t was distinctly declared in
the Senate that the intent of the judi
cial Appropriation bill was to refuse money
for the enforcement of the election law. 1t Is
a mere trick to say that the election law
vould not be really deprived of force, if the
appropriations should fail. That is true !;
patriotism would supply ample means for the
enforcement OF the law. So armies to put
down n rebellion would still be found and
maintained, if traitorOus Congress should
refuse all appropriations for an army, and
should then head q rebellion. But the refusal
would be REASONABLE all the same. And the
refusal of any other appropriation required by
q law of the United States for irs enforce
ment is equally a defiance OF law aud a trea-
sOpable attempt to subveTt the government OF
law under which we live.
This question is a new one. 1t is true that
there have been Congresses before, which
have sought to prevent the abuse of IA law by
attaching conditions to appropriations Of
money. This is different case. The attempt
of Congress is not to prevent q real or alleged
abuse of a law, for it has made no effort to
amend the law itself. The attempt is to de-
feat the law entirely to defeat its original
and proper purpose; to deprive it of vitality
by refusing the money which that law con-
templates as requisite for lis enforcement.
Never before has a Congress of the United
States thus tried to nullify a law which II
had not the power to repeal. And, as has
been said, if the right so to nullify a law eX-
lists at all, it exists in either house separately,
because either can prevent the passage Of an
appropriation bill. THIS controversy orig
mated In refusal of the House alone to ap-
propriate money which the Senate desired to
Appropriate Hence, the question at issue,
strictly stated, is this Has either house of
Congress the right to nullify law OF the
United States 7
Of course, the physical power exists. As
Mr.. Blaine pointed out, either house has the
physical power to dIsorganize the Govern
ment. So the President may have physical
power TO make himself Dictator. None the
less, it would be usurpation and reasonable
outrage for him TO exercise dictatorial power,
or for Congress to nullify a law which ii can
not repeal. Either ought to be resisted to the
end. by other branches of the Government.
This is Government of law, and every citi-
zen, from the highest to the lowest in station,
is equally bound to observe and obey the
laws that exist, and to aid their enforcement.
To resist a law, Congress has no more right
full power than any mob. 1t goes beyond Its
functions as Congress of lawmakers, and
becomes an unlawful assembly of lawbreakers,
whenever it attempts to set aside law, or to
prevent its enforcement, otherwise than
by the constitutional method of repeal or
amendment.
The President will carry with him the COM
mon sense and common patriotism of the
whole country, if he cuts straight through all
technical knots ard verbal cloakings to the
marrow of this business. The vital fact Ia