The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-21
TWO PREROGATIVES.

mirable system Of checks upon arbitrary ana
irresponsible manifestations of power II In
poses upon each anG all Of theseveral estates
ofgovernment, they would be less tumultuous
and immoderate in their charges OF reyolu-
tionary coercion on the part of Congress in
the method 1t has adopted to obtain the repeal
Of the test oath and election laws.
| We specially commend to their research
and reflection that clause which confers upon
the House Of Representatives the exclusive
privilege Of originating all bills to provide
revenue or make appropriations Tor the pur-
poses Of government, as well as the history
of the events which led to its incorporation
| In our organic law. They will find that this
power has always resided In the English
Commons, which body has never been chary
| In the use OF 1t. It Ia recognized principle
OF the British constitution, from which our
own is derived. too long and too firmly estab-
lshed to be questioned at this late day, and
The annals OF Parliament and OF Congress
show too many instances OF its application to
| allow OF resort to 1t In this instance
| to arouse the slightest alarm or apprehension
In the minds Of even ordinarily informed
people. 1t has been forcibly said by a great
eommoner that the "history of the supply
bill Is the history of British liberties" This
is by no means an extravagant figure OF
speech On the contrary it is statement
the accuracy Of which is abundantly substan-
tiated by the recitals of history. Indeed, so
true Is IL, that scarcely one of the more i'm
portant concessions wrung from the crown,
which make up the aggregate OF the British
constitution, but was yielded as the condition
OF a grant of money. Upon this side of the
water the history Of the colonies furnish re-
peated instances Of conflict between their
assemblies and governors, identical with
that which had been going on for CEN
turtles, in the mother country, between the
King and Parliament. Since the establish
ment Of American independence this power
has been repeatedly used by the lower houses
OF Congress and OF the State Legislatures,
both to prevent the execution Of obnoxious
laws and to thwart the design of the
executive department Of government.
It has even been resorted to- but
with an INSCRIPTIONS craftsmanship, to
compel the approval and PRONUNCIATION of
bad and oppressive measures, a notable and
conspicuous instance OF which abuse Of this
power was afforded In the enactment of these
very election laws, which Congress Is now ex-
ercising its privilege, In the legitimate and
usual way, to secure the repeal OF. The
method adopted to erase them from The sta
tute books, which the Republicans affect to
regard as revolutionary and violent, is pre-
cisely the one by which they were placed
there-as riders on the appropriation bills.
The difference Is that the Democratic House
Is using its privilege according to the tradi-
tional method and for the traditional pur-
pose, not Of forcing through violent and in
quisitorial legislation, but to compel the re-
peal Of such oppressive laws and return to
the true principles of the constitution.
On the other hand, that prerogative of the
Executive bytth exercise Of which it Is pro-
posed to defeat the repeal Of these statutes,
has by no means 50 firm q foundation In
natural justice or equity as this prerogative
of the Commons. 1t is not derived from any
Of the great principles of human freedom, or
associated with any Of the grand traditions
which justify and endear the franchises as
sured the people for their own protection.
The utmost that can be said for it is, that it
| Is intended as o check to protect the people
| against their own ill-considered and intern
perate desires.
| In all respects. however, 1t is really moth
| ing else than a guarantee of executive power
which should never be used except to pro-
| tect that department against the unconstitu-
tional aggression of the other estates, and
| certainly not to defeat the manifest and well
considered will OF the people. The veto power
has grown into disuse in England where
the nnwritten constitution, more susceptible
of change than ours, has made marked adj
! Ia,
| arata and unsual powers of the crown. Such
| a thing as the veto Of measure which had
! received the sanction OF Pertinent would
| at this day, create a revolution in England
AS a proof of the alteration of the British
constitution upon this point, a recent English
| writer, Of ability and sound views, says: 1T
| is an undoubted rule Of the constitution, that
the King shall not refuse his assent to bill
| which has passed both Houses, but 1t Is GER
tainly not law. Should the King veto such
q bill his action would be unconstitutional,
but not Illegal In other words, while the
King has never been formally Invested of the
veto powers. his use OF it would be regarded
as unusual and not In accord with the princi-
pies OF the constitution as they are accep ted
to-day.
Inat tne veto power 10 Stlil perpetuated in
this country, and remains one Of the funda-
mental principles Of our institutions, is due
entirely to the immobility of our written con-
stitution. which has perpetuated by sort of
petrfaction the English constitution of
century ago. But, even In this country, no
American President has even dared to use
this unusual perogative for the purposes to
which Hayes Is now expected to apply 1t. 1t
has been frequently used to prevent
the enactment Of laws, but never to
defeat their repeal. Certainly no President
ever dreamed of applying 1t to the defeat of
the appropriations necessary to carry on the
government because these appropriations
were made on conditions unacceptable to him
self. This would be, indeed. monstrous
abuse OF power, and one we do not believe
that Hayes will dare to attempt. 1t would