The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1879-04-17
THE ARMY BILL.

bill which did not appear germane.
With that wonderful unanimity which
bespeaks discipline so thorough as to
degrade man to a machine, the .'revolu,
tionary' cry was taken up by every re,
publican who was not made a mute by
nature, and the concert was brought to q
close only when the position was deemed
no longer tenable on account Of the rat
tling fire to which it was subjected in
the house. Prior to the speeches on the
democratic side. showing the hypocriti-
cal character of republican concern to
preserve appropriation bills from the in
novation Of lacking, there was not a re-
publican in the nation who had watched
the proceedings III congress, whose ar
gumentative powers were not called into
requisition to set forth the dangers of
such revolutionary movements. They
may return to the old shout of the
confederacy; they may seek to pro-
long their power by instilling prejudice
and bigotry, by promoting discord and
sectional divisions. But they are too
signally defeated, to make capital out of
the repeal of these election laws.
The term revolution" is now made to
undergo a change so as to describe the
determination of the house not to pass
appropriation bills in case the president
should veto that pending in the SEN
ate. 1t would be fully as revolutionary,
nay more, for the president to veto the
bill, as it would in the event Of that S
being done for the house to refuse to
present another appropriation bill for
the legislative action of the senate and
executive. The constitution gives the
president the right to veto a bill. 1t
places the origination of all appropria-
ton bills in the house of representatives.
It IS fully az competent fer the one to
refuse to pass appropriation bills as it is
for the other to veto these bills. If the
president vetoes the army bill it will be
at the instance Of his party and not be,
cause the country requires it. The peo-
pie are by no means anxious to invest
the army with dangerous power. They
feel Indifferent to party success when
freedom must be curtailed to make that
success possible. The president in We
toing the bill, if he contemplates such a
thing must do it as a partisan, and not
as the executive Of the nation.
As republican he cannot base his
veto on the inadvisability of placing
riders on important bills. Republicans
have too often committed themselves to
that policy, and that fact is too well
known to allow it to be now held up for
official reprobation. As a republican, he
cannot veto the bill on the ground that a
repeal Of the election laws is unwise and
uncalled for. The leaders of the repub-
icans in the house signifed their will
ingness to support a bill repeating the
election laws if offered as separate
measure. If the veto of the bill can not
be sustained on constitutional grounds,
other than the bare fact that the presi-
dent has the right to interpose his veto;
if the public good is in no way subserved
by the veto of the bill, in no way COM
promised by its passage, is not veto
revolutionary! Is not veto a disgrace
full exercise of delegated power when its
sole object is to prevent the passage of a
bill introduced and supported by demo-
Gratis? So accustomed have the republi-
cans been to shape legislation that they
cannot endure to have bill become a
law which in its passage encountered
their opposition, and the president is
appealed to, to save them from the NOR
LITIGATION of defeat. Suppose the demo-
cratic senate actuated by the same parti-
san motives should refuse to confirm the
presidents nominations, simply because
the appointees are republicans, would
not the action be denounced as reyolu-
tionary? But the president is expected
to veto bills on similar grounds. Is not
his action fully as revolutionary as that
of the senate would be in the case sup
posed?
The threat of the democrats that in
the event Of veto no appropriation bills
shall be passed fluids its parallel in the
threats of the republicans that the politi-
cal riders will insure a veto. If it is
revolutionary for the house to threaten
is it not equally so for the republicans?
II the house by its threatened refusal
coerces the president, does not the pres
ident by holding the veto as a menace
over the house in order to secure legis-
lation acceptable to his party, make an
effort equally as strong at coercion2 And
he takes initiative. He must first put
his threat into execution before the dem
ocrats can act upon theirs. Which is the
revolutionary party2 Which seems to
have justice on its side2 The republicans
express q willingness to repeal the laws,
virtually admitting the justice of demo
cratic demands, and still oppose them.
On what grounds 1t cannot be to avoid
creating a had precedent because that IS
already established by their own acts. 1t
cannot be because the house threatens to
use the powers granted it by the consti,
tuition, because the president can readily
dispel that threat by doing that which
both the constitution and the public will
couutenance. Nor can it be because the
laws would III any way initiate against
public good, because the republicans
through their leaders are on record as
saying they would support the bills as a
separate measure. What then is the
cause of their opposition? That stated
above,-their extreme reluctance to see
passed any bill of political character by
a democratic congress.
Should the conflict between the parties