The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1879-07-16
Wednesday, July Is, 1879.
stin Miarepresenting Faot..

founder, and instead of squarely meeting
the questions put by The ARGUS, draws
impossible conclusions and assumes its
usual untenable position. Referring to
THE ARGUS it says:
THE ARGUS wants to know if the URtOn
takes the position that congress- must
first consult the executive before the final
passage of a measured" Certainly not,
The majority passes its measure, and then
if the measure is vetoed for any cause, and |
there is not two thirds vote to pass it
over the veto, the bill should be modified |
80 that the presidents approval can be
secured.-U Union.
The stupidity Of our neighbor is so evil
dent that mere notice of the above is sufh-
cient to show its inconsistency. First the
Union says it does not take the position
that congress must first consult the
executive before the final passage of
measure"-then proceeds to say just the
reverse, by stating that IF the measure is
vetoed for any cause, and there is not a
two-thirds vote to pass it over the veto, the
bill should be modified so that the presi-
dents approval can be secured" 1t there
is anything tenable in this position, it does
not appear, and the Union in endeavoring
to cover its laundering, gets deeper in the
mire. If there il any difference in the
principle of vetoing in face of bare
majority and that of a two-thirds ma
jority, wherein does 1t consist. The
executive is supposed to veto the meas
ures because of difference of opinion,
between himself and congress? The
fact that he differs with a bare
majority or two thirds majority
makes no difference whatever and does
not explain the question asked by The
ARGUS, -"Whether if it was wrong tor
President johnson, TO exercise his veto
power. it is right now? By the way, right
here it is appropriate to remind our re-
publican contemporary that the super
visors' law was passed as rider during
Johnson's term, and that johnson was
severely censured by the republican press
of the country for presumiDg TO object,
and when he did object, the senate tried
to impeach him. Further, it may be well
to refresh the memory of the editor of the
Union, that congress, which was two
thirds republican at that time, broadly H.
timated to Mr.. johnson that unless he
signed the ridered appropriation bills.
congress would not vote a dollar for the
government, aud would pass them over
his head. Now wherein lies the difference
between then and now, An objection tC
any measure is, or to be tenable ought tC
be founded on principle, consequently il
what our republican contemporary calls
Objectionable legislation was right wher
passed attached as rider to appropriation
bills during Johnson's term, why
under the law of precedent aDC
principle is it wrong for a dem
ocratic congress to attach repea
clauses of such measures as seems best. Il
appropriation bills and pass them. VII
the Union explain? Can the difference
between then and now be explained? Doe
the Union seek to crawl out Of the matte
by standing on the himsy ground that
is not the majority that rules, but th
number of the majority that rules
Does the Union expect inteliger
readers will be deceived by an
such thin defence? If it does,
presumes on the crdeulity of its reader
and insults their intelligence. While al
sorting that congress is not required
consult the executive, yet in the same sci
tence it goes on to say that congress ma
modify all measures to suit the executive
that unless two thirds majority decides
the contrary, then the executive is Il
power supreme in settlement. Certain
the Union does not wish to be understood
as defending doctrine which it must knO
cannot be successfully maintained tt
Union started out to defend the executi,
vetoes; it realizes that these vetoes a
not received with enthusiasm among r
pubicans generally, and it further knoy
that the last veto of the marshals' bill WI
grave mistake from which the party ca
hardly recover. Andrew johnson WI
prosecuted and nearly impeached for c,
ercising his veto power, and now when col
Rress presumed to act independently ar
10 accordance with its right az legislati,
body, the republican organs everywhei
raised howl of Indignation, and took Ii
remarkable position that congress was sui
servient to the executive in legIslatiy
matters; that if a measure was passe
which was Objectionable" to the execl
tive, then congress must not attempt [
galnsay lbs wishes, but immediately conforl
thereto, and So change the measur
that his official autograph could be Obtain
ed. To dootherwise, would, in the opinio
of the average republican be nothing lei
than revolution. The stalwart paper
however, in their zeal to get out of q
awkward dilemma, did not stop to thin
of the inconsistency of their position. an
rushed blindly into the tray, only to dil
cover, however, that comparisons wei
odious" to republicans as class and sta
warts in particular, Again we assert tn,
there has not been an attempt to squared
meet the question. How, lift was rigt
for n republican congress when Johnso
was president, to pass appropriations wit
ridered legislation attached and to threate
10 starve the government unless thos