Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1879-03-13

constitution imperatively commands:
Let US illustrate by specific instances
The constitution declares, for example
that the President shall at ''stated
times" receive for bis services a com
pensation which shall neither be in
creased nor diminished during the pc.
riod for which he shall have been elect
ed. The law fixing the compensation
of the President, as it stands in the Re
vised Statutes, is in these words:-'The
President shall receive in full for hi:
services during the term for which he
shall have been elected the SUM OF fifty
thousand dollars a year, to be paid
monthly" 1t was necessary for the
statute to prescribe the frequency Of
payments, in order to comply with the
constitutional requirement that the
President shall receive his pay sat sta
ted times" The law regulating the
Presidents salary must necessarily be
fixed before the beginning OF his term,
and it is beyond the power of Con-
gress to change it during the period fol
which he was elected. The duty Oi
providing its payne n; in the regular
annual appropriation is rs clear and
unquestionable as any duty which the
constitution imposes upon Congress.
The monthly payment of the Presi-
dents salary is as yet provided for on
ly until the expiration of the present
fiscal year, on the 30th of June. The
compensation which will be due him
on the 1st of August cannot be paid
without the passage of one of the de-
feated appropriation bills. II Con-
gress should refuse to pass that bill at
the extra session it would violate one
of the plainest provisions of the con-
stitution which all the members are
sworn to support.
The salaries of the judges present d
similar case, which affects greater
number of persons. There ale sixty
eight federal judges-namely, nine
Justices of the Supreme Court, nine
Circuit Judges and fifty District Judges.
The mandate of the constitution re-
specting their salaries is strict and ab-
solute. 1t is in these imperative words
-"The judges both of the Supreme and
inferior courts shall hold their offices
during good behavior. and shall, at sta
ted times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be di-
minished during their continuance in
Office" The purpose of this import int
provision is to secure the independence
of the judges by depriving Congress OF
all power either to curtail their COM
pensation or to subject them to incon-
venience by deferring its payment.
The constitution is just as mandatory
in requiring their salaries to be paid
Sat stated times" as in forbidding
them to be diminished. We accord
ingly find in every law ever passed by
Congress fixing the compensation of
the federal judges a regulation Prescri-
bing the frequency of the payments.
The Revised Statutes require the JUS
tices of the Supreme Court to be paid
monthly, and the judges of the circuit
courts to be paid quarterly. This
method of payment having been fixed
by general statutes it is one OF the
plainest duties of Congress to make
the appropriations which may be ne
cessary for insuring punctualIty at the
"stated times" prescribed by the con-
stitution. 1t does not lie in the dis
cretion of Congress to withhold such
appropriations. The constitution has
taken away all discretion on this sub
ject by imposing an imperative COM
mand, which no member of Congress
can disregard without violating his
oath. Ii the necessary appropriation
bills should not be passed at the extra
session the democratic members will
have to face an unpleasant responsible
ity.
We come now to the question wheth-
er blocking the wheels of the govern
nent by withholding the supplies is q
legitimate method of forcing legisia-
ton. 1t was defended by Senator
Thurman on the last night of the ses-
sion by analogios drawn from English
history. All such analOgies are false,
and the reasoning founded on them is
crude and wild. 1t is true that during
the reigns of the last three Stuarts the
English Parliament attempted to curb
arbitrary power by withholding sup
plies. But nothing of the kind has
been attempted in Parliament during
the last century and half. Although
this power is theoretically part of the
British constitution it would not, in
this age of the world, be tolerated in
practice. Even during the violent
contest over the Reform bill OF 1882 il
was never suggested or thought of as a
possible eXpedient for overcoming the
opposition of the House of Lords.
There was threat to swamp the
Lords opposition by the creation of q
new peers; but there was moi a states
man in England who would not have
deemed it the height of sbsur-
dity to have proposed the extreme
measure of disorganizing the govern
meht by withholding the means of car.
rying it on. In modern times the bu-
siness of the community is interviewer
at so many points with the reg ular
operations Of the government that in
finite confusion and disaster would re-
suit from blocking the public service.
What could our merchants do without
the custom houses and port regula-
tions. What redress would citizens
have if the courts of justice were closed?
How could our two thousand national
banks transact their business if inter-
course were cut off between them and
the Treasury Department, which holds
the bonds pledged for their circulation,
pays them their interest, redems their
notes and supplies them the gold they
may need in their transactions? What
would the community do without the
Post Office? 1t is needless to extend
the list; these specimens will suffice to
show the injury and confusion which
would result from an actual stoppage
of the supplies and its Inevitable con-
sequence of disbanding the government
if continued for any length of time. 1t
may suit the purposes of demagOgues
tn threaten these consequences in a