The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1879-04-13

fNfsJ eAoAtS tuc HCScooitg VI apptOpIl-
atoms and will willingly make them.
Whether any other acts are made at
the same time is none of the presidents
business. Nor does it oncer the mi
nority; they have no rights which the
majority are bound to respect, and they
are useful only to make up a quorum,
anyway.
The above is brigadier reasoning.
There is no installing its tenor. To
follow it out means that the chief ex-
ecutive of this government, who is en-
dowed with legislative power, is to be
robbed of his constitutional preroga-
tives, or he must see the servants Of the
government starved away from their
posts and soon find himself a simple cit
izen amidst anarchy. The brigadiers
are virtually warning against the con-
stitution. They seek to annul that
safeguard by bulldozing the president
into submission. They have not the
necessary constitutional power to have
things fixed to their liking. Either of
two prime requisites is necessary-a
a president of their w kidney, or a
two-thirds majority in each branch of
congress. They have neither, and
therefore they cannot lawfully "run
the masheen" to the full bent of their
inclinations.
In an enlarged sense the democracy
are 30 far as legislative matters arecon-
cerned, in a minority, since they can
not do as they would. Recognising this
they propose the heroic treatment.
Submit, or starveln is their startling
ultimatum. 1t is a plan of compulsion
which was never anticipated by the
founders of she government, nor ac-
knowledged by the people. 1t was and
is, thought, that the three great
branches of our governmen-the legis-
lative, executive and judicial, should
not conflict, nor should one have power
to coerce the other.
The constitution and the people pre-
sumo that the president has brains,
judgment and honesty, else that Office
would never have been given the great
veto power. President Hayes has a
right to think and act as he thinks best
under the constitution, for the good Of
the country. If he violates the consti-
tuition he can be impeached. Until he
does that his acts are binding and no
one has a right to question them. Now
suppose the appropriation bills, with
their "riders," pass. Mr.. Hayes OBJ
jects to the rider, he thinks it best for
the people that such laws should not
pass. Exercising the power invested
in him, therefore, he vetoes them 1t
is not his fault If the appropriations to
to run the government are mixed with
partisan legislation. He didn't put it
there: he thinks it should not be there.
The majority of the people think like
wise. Congress, or the democracy,
cannot pass the bill over his veto and
1t adjourns to be called into session
again. The same programme is repeat
ed. Nc money is forthcoming when
needed. Complications arise and dis
trust begets suspicion and anarchy fol-
lows. Who is to blame? the PRESIDENT
No; for he merely exercised his .consti-
tutional authority. The congressp
Yes; for it acted without authority of
the constitution.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the
president were intimidated successfully
by fear of consequent complications,
and signed the Appropriation bills with
all their irrelevant import. Don't you
see that it would open the flood gate
OF ~partisanship to wash away all the
staying banks y the constitution Par
tisan legislation, and any other kind,
would all be forced or whipped through
Where would such a thing end? The
precedent would be followed always
while the majority in the two houses
had their hands tied as the present ma
jority have. Then If the president is
to be 'intimidated into signing bills or
forced to the act in order to save the
government, what becomes of the O n
st%itutional power given him? OF what
use is it when he cannot apply it safelyp
So much of the constitution would
therefore be virtually repealed which
repeating power is reserved to two
thirds of the states. Then If one por-
ton of the constitution can he repeal
ed by a bare majority Of bulldozers in
congress, why not another2 What is
to prevent tile majority from forcing
the supreme court into a certain de-
cision on pain of obtaining no funds,
and having The court disrupted? In
short, If the principle being attempted
by the democracy succeed, what is to
prevent them from rnling the country
without executive or judiciary?
Talk of usurpation, there was never
purer usurpation accomplished than is
now threatened. Coercion is something
that cannot, and will not be tolerated.
The point with the democracy is this:
They desire to obtain several ends. If
there We're a democratic president they
could reach those ends by proper spec
ial bills, instead of incorporating them
with the appropriations. Then there
would be nothing revolutionary in their
action. If they had a two-thirds ma