Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-01
fCoHeluded from 3d page. |

| IA
money bill for the support OF the Army
and tho Navy. The Lords resisted IL
for q time, but finally gave way. This
Is in fact the law of the realm to-day.
The Commons are absolutely masters of
every subject of this kind In their
character as the representatives of the,
people they have enforced this and 9th.
er great rights Mt the expense even of
the blood of kings and the forfeiture OF
their thrones. The safety of the civil
liberties of the people is above all price.
No lesser motive should cause or ever
has caused them to use this great power,
nor should nor does any lesser one
prompt us to use il now.
But il il asserted that this is revolu.
tionary and cocrcye. The first answer
to this argument upon this subject is
that we have no right TO assume in re.
gard TO this bill that any feature of this
bill will meet disapproval anywhere.
Why should such an assertion be made
Coercion is not asserted in the bill il.
self; it is not asserted by the commit.
tee and why should the legislative
branch of the Government, the immo.
diate representatives of the people and
of the States, be charged with coercion
tionary?
The practice of twenty years upon mp.
preparation bills and the precodcn,s
that have cited demonstrate that this
is not revolutionary measure. but that
the processes are constitutional methods
and in accordance with precedent. 1t
is said we deny supplies % coercc agree.
ment with US. There is no such threat
! -. = it.s
connect the grant with provision that
the troops who are 10 be supplied shall
obey the laws that we enact. According
to this argument our sole power is to
vote supplies and to tax the people for
those supplies, but we are denied the
power to say how the Army shall be
used. We are denied any control as TO
what shall be done with the money we
vote, or five seek to do 10 we are accus.
ed OF being coerciye and revolutionary.
The argument is that we deny supplies
and threaten coercion.
Sir, let us look at this subject. Con.
gress has three branches. Each one is
Independent in its sphcrc. Each branch
Of Congress has negative on the other,
and that fact is a vital fact IN the pres.
efvation of the liberties of this people.
The English system OF separate branches
il our system, and il is vital in it that
the Senate shall have an absolute mega
tive upon the proceedings of the House,
and the House shall have an absolute
negative upon the proceedings of the
Senate. But because the Senate refuses
to pass bill that has matter in it that
the Senate will not agree 10 when il
comes from the House and refuses to
pass a bill because of that matter, is the
Senate revolutionary Does that fol.
low 1t is the plainest proposition in
the world that this is q constitutional
right and invaluable as check. 1t
cannot be dispensed with as a part OF
the governmental theory OF this coun.
try that each House Is 10 have an ALSO.
Lutte negative upon the other. And the
negative of the Executive is n check
upon the legislative branch, limited by
the two thirds provision.
Tho exercise by either House of It's
right 20 refuse 10 pass a bill because Of
denied matter in the bill is the exercise
of a plain, clear, constitutional right.
The exercise OF this right by tho Senate
is by no means revolution. 4 President
has the right TO veto bill. /, is by no
means revolutionary that he should
veto n bill vet he undertakes by the
exercise of his qualified negative TO re.
quire US TO do what he wishes. That is
part OF his clear right Il belongs TO
him under constitutional authority, and
would be tho last to attempt to take
IL away from him. IL j. vital here as II
is in the legislative branch. But when
the Executive vetoes a bill and we pass
the bill by twothirds, we are practically
coercIng the Executive. That IL the in
evitable conclusion. but this is constitu.
tionAl coercion. The Executive, in pur.
suance Of his qualified negative given TO
him by the Constitution, returns VS. the
bill with his objections, and wo-thirds
of the legislative branches pass the bill
over his veto. We are coereing the ex.
ecutive power. but are we revolutionary
We are exercising the legislative power
of this Republic, and it Is neither reyo.
lutionary nor coercive.
But suppose the bill comes here and
we have not the necessary two. thirds TO
pass ii over his veto, what follows We
undertake to pass the bill, we put IL
upon reconsideration in accordance with
the Constitution and It fails for want OF
two.thirds, what then3 Are we to be
coerced IN regard To legislative right
Are we to say that we must pass the
bill in che form he wishes because the
Executive has vetoed i'll The right Of
non.action, the right TO decline TO act
under such circumstances, Is as much
the right of this House and Of the other
House and Of the two Houses acting in
their legislative capacity as Is the right
OF the President to veto bill. We may
decline TO act and 60 no further; we
need not initiate the legislation anew.
II we could be compelled to do this,
then the independence Of each branch
: and the independence of the legislative
power is absolutely gone, and you have
no longer majority rule for the Prcsi.
: dent, and the minority can coerce legis.
lation and thus the minority become
the majority, and with an unscrupulous
: Executive cohering the power OF the