Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-01

free people, they will sustain us, and
this Congress will write upon the history
of this people an ineiIaceable record
that their representatives In the Forty.
sixth Congress were true to the liberties
of the American people.
Sir, each must be responsible for its
conclusions and its actions to the peo
pie themselves, and each must act in
full view of that ultimate tribunal
The power OF the legislative branch to
raise armies and vote supplies is to be
exercised "A that legislative branch
judges wise. There is no power TO
control, to direct, or to coerce IL. II the
Executive differs, his negative controls
unless twothirds overrulc it. II not.
the bill falls, but his negative does not
compel us to act.
Sir, this mode of coercion never was
intended TO be used upon the legisla.
tive branch. There il nothing in the
Constitution or in the history Of this
people that can be construed TO mean
that the legislative branch shall act at
the dictation of the Executive it is
not found in our system anywhere, and
1t cannot be cited to deter us from that
which is plain, clear duty.
The Independence Of the legislative
branch and the rights Of the people are
often TO be preserved best by this de.
fensive power of non action. The Sen.
ntor from Maine read from Mr.. Clay.
Let me read what he said in 1919, upon
"A question Of constitutional interpre.
tation upon an Army bill, an issue be-
tween th" President and him a. TO what
should he put upon that bill in regard
tointernal improvements. Mr. Trimblc
had moved an amendment allowing
troops 10 be used 10 make road and
appropriating money for that purpose.
This involved the question of internal
Improvements. Mr. Clay, who WAS then
Speaker, when the House was in Com.
mitteo OF the Whole, said this:
Mr.. Clay hoped that this motion would
not be insisted on, and, IL insisted on,
would not prevail. Tho object Ia view
was to present the simple, unniKcd propo-
sition whether the Executive has the power
20 employ the money Of the country in
constructing roads II associated with the
company proposed the amendment it
would make the sense of the committee
oquiyocRl on the important question pre-
fentcd by the motion Of Mr. Trimbl.. For
that motion, Mr.. Clay said, be meant to
vote. II would declare that By a formal
act that j; was competent, by The grant of
power, for Congress - authorize such
works. Mr.. Clay said ho thought Congress
had bccn wanting in it, duty ia delaying
80 long 10 lcgislai" un this subject. ], WAs
proper 10 pass bin and present Il g. the
President, and II he rofused 10 fRnction IL,
then, Mr.. Clay declared, he had no hcsilA-
iiau in ayowing he should bc ready 60 pro-
coed 10 hostIiItics With tho President on
this point, and withhold every arpropria-
uon until he conceded the point.
That was in January, 1919. Another
argument has been made use OF in re
gard 10 the exercise Of the negative of
the President. which il seems TO me il
without foundation: that il, that he
has the right TO judge at all times and
under all circumstances OF the character
Of the legislation that lac shall veto.
Where this power is used upon a bill
that he judges TO be unconstitutional,
or is hasty, unwisc, or improper lrgisla-
tion, then il is very clear that hc has
this night, and he ought TO have it. But
when in the history of this Government
was he ever called upon to or did any
President ever veto arcpcaline statute
When, where. under what circumstan.
cos, in what condition OF affairs, did the
President OF the United States ever
veto a bill that repealed a law which
clothed him with power and took il
from the penplc2 When and where did
any President Of the United States ever
veto bill To repeal law that gave 10
him control 10 send troops TO the places
Of election with the power TO cocrce the
people and take from them their rights2
When and where has the President
ever vetoed bill giving the people Of
this country any Of their liberties. or
repeating a statute which took from
them their rights? There are none
such, and the people will never sustain
such action.
The Executive negative practically
refers the question TO the people, and
to them we and he must appeal. This
power never was intended 10 be used
to keep yoke on the people or TO
destroy a repeating statute. Ordinari-
ly the people sustain vctoes. whyl
Because of the refusal by the Execu.
tive to accept power wrung from the
people but suppose you reverse this
aud 10y your repeating statute give to
the Executive more power, which pow.
er is wrung from the States and the
people, then there comes an entirely
different question and tell Senators
that we can face the ultimate tribunal
Of the people in denying supplies to
the Executive power on a bill which
gives back 10 them great cardinal
right. In such case we will have the
old question of kingly prerogative
against popular right and upon that
issue we can 60 to the people with per-
feet confidence and safety.
But is il not a strange argument that
the legislative power which controls the
purse, and through that the sword, has
no right 10 say how troops are TO be
used that the legislative power is not
to have any control over this subject
II seems 10 me this is a very singular
argument. The purse was given TO the
legislative power to control the sword,
and they go together, and the rights
and the liberties of this people are 10 he