Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-05-01
no proyision ofthe Felera.

frequently exercised by Con. ..s and
the precedents are numerous and well
known.
In order TO ascertain what proportion
OF legislation concerning the Army Of
general and permanent nature had
oeen enacted previous 10 1874 upon ap-
preparation bills made an examination
ei the Revised Statutes Of the United
States, passed at the Brst session Of the
forty.third Congress-l S73 4-which "efn-
brace the Statutes Of the United States.
general and permanent in their nature,
in force on the Let day Of December.
1873, az revised and consolidated by
commissioners appointed under an act
OF Congress" These laws are found
under title II. "Tbe Army" and include
sections 1904 TO 1861. both inclusive, Of
the Revised Statutes. The number Of
sections under the title Of Army" ia
two hundred and sixty-eight. Of these
ninety.two were derived directly from
appropriation acts. including acts ap-
propriatinR for the support Of the Army.
-un1ry civil, consular and diplomatic,
Military Academy, and fortifcations.
Thus IT appears that more than one.
third OF the general and permanent pro.
visions Of law regarding the Army were
enacted upon appropriation bills prior
to 1874. But, in fact, the proportion
was much more than one.half. because
many other sections were derived from
acts consolidating the statutes in rela-
ton to the Army. passed from time to
time, beginning at an early day in our
legislation, which statutes were derived
IN great part from provisions attached
a IFg a.
permanent and general provisions Of
law derived from appropriation bills
were passed upon such in the years 1892,
1870, lsi3. l34G, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1856,
1851. 1858, 1859, lsGO, 1861, 1862, 1863,
1868, lsGG, 1867 1868. 1863, 1870. 1872,
and 1873. and the greater part Of such
legislation on appropriation bills con.
cerning the Army was enacted during
the rule Of the republican party.
Second. ! assert that this doctrine is
sustained 10y precedents a. old a. the
time Of Charles I. The difficulties, as I
have already said, between the first
three Par,iaments of his reign and the
King grew out OF efforts on his part TO
obtain supplies for the war for recover.
ing the palatinAte from Spain without
concessions Of any part Of what he re-
garded as his prerogaiiycs. and on the
part OF tho Commons 20 make the sup
plies the conditions Of concessions in "a
vor Of civil liberty. Now ! take frem
English history the following:
The Common House of Parliament in
the year 1911 third year Of Henry VIII
Of sanguinary memory tackled several
acts OF sttainder as amendments" TO
simple bills. These, Of course, were
lcveled at certain Lords The Commons
never knew any Limitation in that re-
gard except such as they deliberately
passed upon in their own right. and
these assertions Of the petition OF right
were a mere enforcement of their an
cient privileges
Charles ] levied shipmoncy because
Parliament included in money bills'
the guarantee Of political rights Every
body knows that the resistance Of the
King was not against the association OF
the items. The pueriliiy OF a sepsra-
ton Of the items was not thought Of
even by Stuart Itwas great cardinal
principles upon which the Commons
stood. and il was these the King resist
ed. He was compelled 10 Yield. and his
subsequent faulty lost him his head.
William III, soon after his accession,
made large grants 10 bis favoites. These
were under the law, and made with The
nsent of the council. In Parliament
they were deemed exorbitant and pref.
judicial 10 the public good. Hence the
House of Lords made the matter a sub.
ject of mild official rebuke by resolution
in the year 100, but the Commons went
further and tackled TO money bilr'
for the support Of The army and navy)
an amendment called the resumption
act. which annulled all the grants,
knowing at the time that some OF them
bad been cold by the grantees. The
Lords resisted long; the King at first
resolved TO stand by them, but he final.
ly yielded. and the money billi passed
with the unpalatable amendment Yet
the Commons of that day were particu.
larly scrupulous in regard TO amend
ments" and precedents. In the year
l702 the Commons passed an act of at
tainder against the Pretender (iust then
recognized by Louis XVII when war
was imminent, arising out of the Span
ish succession. The Lords put on an
amendment including the name Of
the Pretender's mother, Mary OF Este,
widow of James II, who had recently
died after declaring Mary as recently
but the Commons would not allow IL,
declaring that any amendment was i'm.
proper on q bill of such importance.
They were reminded Of prccedcnts in
the time Of Henry VIII, but the Com
mons would not yield.
As the right Of the Commons 10 put
amendments on money bills was un.
questionable, the Lords would also ex.
ereise their right: 20 short time be-
fore the death of the King the Lords
Resolved. Never to pass n money bill
with . clause tackled that wks foreign 10 the
body Of the bill.
This il the case to which the Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr.. Hoar referred
in bis argument of the 10th of March, in
reference 10 legislation on appropriation
bills. But see the result Only few
months earlier foreigners had been dis
qualified bv ACT OF Par riian1enl from haid.