Daily globe., 1879-05-01
MIR. HAYES' VETO

they have to endure every hardship.
MR.. HAYES VETO.
We trust that every intelligent man in the
country has read the message of Mr.. Hayes,
vetoing the army appropriation bill. While |
it is not document remarkable for |
literary excellence and craftsmanship, |
it is remarkable as showing upon |
what slight grounds the Republican |
party seeks to frustrate the will of Congress
and the people. Not single good reason is
given in all the message for the continuance
Of laws upon the statute books which were
sought to be repealed by the act in question,
unless partisan advantage can be reckoned
as good reasons.
One point of the message deserves espec-
| ial attention. He claims that there is an in
tent on the part of Congress to coerce the
executive into the approval of measures that
he decidedly disapproves, and in the next
breath recites the provisions of law which he
esteems it his duty to enforce, those provis
ions being the laws which Con-
gress designed to repeal. These, he asserts,
he cannot enforce without authority to call
upon the army to sustain him, and this is
the reason why he disapproves of the army
bill His position in this regard amounts
simply to the allegation that Congress has
no right to amend or repeal existing Laws.
He insists, in effect, that the laws now on
the statute books must remain there, and
| ;ch no yorouirno nf tho 1ow-
making power to alter, amend or repeal
them. If this is not an attempt upon the
part of the fraudulent executive to coerce
the lawful Congress, what is it? Such
preposterous theory has never before been
promulgated by any person holding the Of
flee of President of the United States. 1t is
singular doctrine, which no intelligent
man in the country can, by any process of
reasoning, be brought to approve.
Again, Mr.. Hayes sets up the defense for
his veto that Congress has perverted the con-
stitution il adhering to the rule that all bills
appropriating money should originate with
the House of Representatives. This, he pro-
fesses to think, is a strong point, and argues
that by the exercise of that privilege the Sen
) ate was deprived of a proper right to deter
mine the provisions that ought to have been
engrafted on the bill. Such technical OBJ
! lection is too pusrile to merit consideration.
| While the right of the House to originate all
appropriation bills is not expressed in the
constitution, it has been the usage ever since
the formation of the government to grant il
that privilege, and it seems to US that objec.
tions to such usage come somewhat late in
the day.
"Upon the assembling of Congress-" says
Mr.. Hayes, "the question was presented
whether the attempt made in the last Con
gress to engraft by construction a new
principle upon the constitution should b,
= persisted in or not.' This new principle il
;, simply the principle that has prevailed fo
: more than forty years, of placing riders up
on appropriation bills. When Mr.. Hayes was
in Congress he voted for many such meas
ures; since he has occupied the Presidential
Office he has approved many. His objec
tions to the bill in question on such GROUND
s come, therefore, with very bad grace. tt
j. may be made upon his act he asserts tina
j. Congress has had abundant time to pass tn,
:, needed appropriation bills and whateve
" political measures might be deemed neces
II sary, but he does not state what all mel
know that the political bills would hav
been promptly vetoed by him, and tina
is therefore all time bestowed upon then
y would be simply thrown away.
j. A careful perusal of the message fails t.
y develop single point we'll taken. It is pitt
II fully weak-almost imbecile-and intensel
II partisan in it's tone. While protesting to &C
}. for the good of the whole country MI
Hayes cannot disguise the fact that he i
acting only for the party that placed him il
IS office. While declaiming against being co
l. creed, he attempts to coerce the legislativ
branch of the government; while insistin
j. that the executive and legislative powers ar
ls coordinate, he arrogates to himself tn
10 functions of both, and with mock dignit
> dictates to Congress the course it ought t
u pursue and must pursue to meet his ar
proyal.
t. The course of the Democrats in this eme1
rs genoy has not yet been determined. It
x represented that they will stand fast by the
y. principles and re-enact the bill precisely 6
or it previously stood, and if again vetoed the
t. will adjourn Congress without more ado
n is very evident that the time has arrive
I'd when coercion must be employed on OF
or side or the 9th or. We prefer that Congre
should coerce Mr.. Hayes rather than that M
Hayes should coerce Congress. The gre
wv majority of the people approve the course
ot their representatives and will stand by the
ot in all emergencies. But they should NAL
U haste slowly-take no illconsidered step tn
ne will have to be retraced. They have the be
at of the contest thus far, and by wise cour
IL in the future can retain the public confden
u- they have already won.
APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
One of the bones of contention betwe,
OF the two parties in the present Congress
Is the Jurors test oath-has been remove
'te In deciding a case that came before hi
tes from Florida involving the validity of Il
by act, Justice Field, of the United States 8
OF preme court, declared that the law is unco
20 stitutional and void, and was only proper
ID a war measure in the insurgent States,
te. when the war was over and the States I
rs cforod 10 {boir rolo4;o,,e -,