Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-05-03

Hz6u by law the duty 10 make the app |
is plain and pere ptory |
10 iefuse 10 make them is disobedience |
o. Ii!e Constitution aud reasonable.
SO, when it is declared that Con- |
gEtss shall have power 10 provide |
mnuey lo- pay debts, and fol- me COM
maa defense and tie general welfare,
the plain meaning Is that Congress
shall 10 Jhese things, and refusal TO
10 them is revolutionary, anu subver-
sive of the Constitution. a refusal
less fragrant woul be npeachable in
the case Of every officer and depart
menI OF the Government within the
reach of impeachment. Were the
President 10 refuse to DO any act en-
Joined on him by the Constitution, he
v Guild be Improbable and ought 10 be
convicted and removed from Office as a
convict. Should the Judges, one or some
or all of them, refuse to perform any duty
which the Constitution commits to the ju-
dicial branch, the refusal would be plainly
Improbable. Congress is not amenable to
impeachment. Congressional majorities
are iriable ut the bar ofpublc opinion, and
in no other human forum. Could Congress
be dissolved instantly here as in England,
could Senators and Representative be
driven instantly from their seats by pOpu-
lar Gs8pprOVal, were they amenabIe pre-
sently somewhere, there would be more OF
bravery, if not less of guilt, in disregard
Of sworn obligation. Legislators are bound
chiefly by their honor and their oaths: and
the very impunigy and exemption they en-
| Joy exalts and measures their Obligations
and the crime and OdiUm of violating them
| Because of the fixed tenure by which the
members Of each House hold their places
and their trusts, iTreparable harm may
| come of their acts and omissions, before
they can We visited with even political de-
| feat, and before the wrong they do can De
undone. y Congressional majority Is aO-
solutely safe during its term, and those
| who suffered such impInity to exist IN the
| frame of our Government must nave reLleu
on the enormity and turpitude Of the act
| to deter the representatives OF the people
and the representatives, OF States from pc
| traying a trust so exalted and SO sacred as
| these offices imply.
Mr. President, it does not escape my at
tention, SIS it must occur to those around
me, that in ordinary times obvious aphor-
isms, l might say tTUIsmS ike these would
be needless, if not out of place in the SEN
ate. They are pertinent now because OF an
occasion without example IN American
history. 1 know Of no similar instance
! in British history. Could one be found, 1t
would only mark the difference between
an hereditary monarchy without written
constitution, and a free Republic with
| written charter plainly defining from the
| beginning the powers, the rights, ana the
|
ment. The nearest approaches in English
| experience to the transactions which now
| menace this country, only gid with broad
| light the wisdom Of those who established
| p system TO exempt America forever from
| the struggles between king craft and liberty,
| between aTistOcratic pretension and human
! rights, which il succeeding centuries hao
! CheckeTed and begrimed the annals OI
| Great Britain. /. was not to transplant
| but 20 leave behind and shut ou. the usur-
| cations and preTcgatiye5 Of hIGgs, MOBILES
! and gentry, and the rude and violent re-
| sorts which, with varying and only partial
! success, had been matched against
! them, that wise and far seeing
/ men of many natiOnaLties came to these
! shores and founded "a government Of the
| people, for the people and by the people,
| Such bUisterous conflicts as the Old World
| had witnessed between subjects and rulers
| between privilege and right, were the
| warnings which our fathers needed, the
| dangers which they Stunned, the evils
| which they ayeIted, the disasters which
they made impossible so long as their pos
| teFity should cherish their Inheritance.
Until now no madness of party, no au-
dacity or desperation Of sinister, sectional,
or partisan design, has ever Ventured on
| such an attempt as has recently come to
pass in the two Houses Of Congress. The
| proceeding l mean TO characterize, if mis-
understood anywhere, is misunderstood
| here. One listening TO the addresses de-
liVeTed 10 the Senate during this debate, as
it Is called, must think that the majority Is
arraigned, certainly that the majority
wishes to seem and is determined to seem,
arraigned merely for insisting that prOvis-
ions spprOpristing money to keep the Gov
ernmeut alive and provisions not In them
selves improper relating to other matters
may be united in the same bill With
somewhat Of mOnOtOnOus and OstentatiOus
iteration we have been asked whether in
/ Loft
ton bills is revolution, or revolutionary
No one in my hearing has ever so con-
| tended.
Each House is empowered by the Con-
stitutiUn TO make rules governing the
modes of lis own procedure. The rules
permitting, l know of nothing except con-
venience common sense, and the danger OF
lOg~rouing combinations, which tOrbids
putting all the appropriations IL 10 one bill,
and in the same bill, all the revenue laws,
a provision sdmittIng State into the Union,
another paying pension to a widow, and
another changing the name of a steambO
The votes ans the Executive approval
which would make one of these provisions
: q law would make them all 2 law. The
proceeding would be outl&ndish, but it
/ would not violate the Constitution.
\ Senator might vote against such &
p hUddIe of incOngruities, although separ-
/ a1lly be would approve each one of them.
II however, they passed both Houses in a
bunch, and the Executive found no objec-
ton i any feature of the bill on its merits,
and the only criticism should be that it
would have been better legislative prac-
tice 10 divide it into separate enactments, it
is not easy to see on what ground a veto
could stand.
; The assau which has been made on the
Executive branch of the Gov eminent, and
on the Constitution itself would not be
less fragrant if separate bills had been re-
sorted to as the weapons Of attack. Sup
pose in . separate bill the majority had in
advance Of appropriations, repealed the
/ National Bank Act and the Resumption
Act, and had declared that unless the En-
acutive surrendered his convictions and
yielded up his approval Of the repeating
act no appropriations should be made
would the separation Of the bills have pal
lated or condoned the revolutionary pur-
pose? In the absence of an ayowai that
appropriations were TO be finally withheld.
or that appropriations were to be made to
upon the approval or veto of something
else, s resort to separate bills might have
| cloaked and secFeted for a time the real
| meaning Of the transaction. In that re-
suect it would have been wise and artful to
resort to separate bills on this occasion
| and l speak, think, in the hearing of at
| least one Democratic Senator who did not
/ overlook in advance the suggestion now
made. But when it is delared or intended
/ at uTllnSs spppiag of lpUisl efi Il