Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-07-24

armed with powers ample for its own
indefinite perpetuation, and which will
inevitably be used for such purposes.
In the face of such an issue, so raised
and emphasized by the President and
his counsellors ut the late extra session,
| deem it of the utmost importance
that the people of this country should
comprehend his meaning and the effect
of the powers for which he contends,
and which, if allowed, will be fatal to
that distribution of powers which our
ioreiathers decided to be essential for
the preservation of liberty. The Pres
idcnt intimates, although not clearly,
in his last veto message, that he has
the rightful power to convene Congress
and to keep it in session until appro-
priatiQns sufficient in his arbitrary
! Judgment are made for the enforce
ment of any law. This claim, if ex-
amined, will be found to contain an
assumption of legislative power and
discretion which it is not unfair to call
usurpation. BY the UNMARRIED custom
Of our Government from its commence
ment all appropriations for its support
| under its laws are made annually. In
the case of the army the Constitution
expressly inhibts any appropriation
for more than two years Yet, If the
power be conceded which has nov
been claimed by the President, no re.
/ trenchment will ever become possible
until he shall consent to the repeal of
the law whose execution he claims To
be necessary, and Of the expenses OF
executing which he constitutes himself
! sole Judge. That is what | mean by
saying that the doctrine contcnded for
| by Mr.. Hayes would lead virtually to
the absorption of entire legislative
power in the Executive branch, tor it
would in effect make all appropriations
perpetual and destroy the power of
Congress to exercise any discretion
. over the amount or the uses 10 which
+ they should be applied
"Thc President having taken this
position, what is likely to result p
"IIe has taken it in his veto Of the
legislative and judicial appropriation
/ bill, and if he is suffered to maintain
it By the popular voice, that which
I Hamilton termed a dishonorablc stag
nation of public affairs must occur.
What Is your opinion of the veto
Of the bill for marshal- expenses p
"An examination of the Revised
/ Statutes will disclose how little jusii-
fication Mr.. Hayes had for his veto Of
the separate bill providing 100000
/ for the expenses, fees, etc, OF United
States Marshals, He says in substance
that because the bill sent him excluded
the applications of any moneys there
by appropriated to pay deputy mar
shals for political services ut the polls
| of election and because it forbade any
officer Of any department to incur any
. liability for such services that there
fore his power to execute election laws
was interfcred with and prevented ;
wherefore for that sole reason he re-
fused to assent to the legislation. Sec
ton 3,67S of the Revised Statutes rep
rcscnts and adopts laws passed in 1903
and in 1868, and these and the section
expressly prohibit the application OF
any money except to the objects for
which it was especially appropriated.
Section 3,67g, which was the act OF
July. 1870, forbade any Department
of the Government TO cxpend any sum
in excess of the appropriation made
| by Congress-and | beg you to itali-
cize these words-or 10 inroire The
Government IN any contract for The
titure payment Of money IN eToess d
such appropriations. 1t would puzzle
Court, much less plain citizens, to
see why bill should be vetoed which
forbade an officer to incur any liabil.
ity' for the Government when an ex-
isting statute plainly forbade him
from involving the Government in
any contract for the same object. Yet
the law of July, 1870, wA passed by
Congress having a two.thirds Re
publican majority in both branches
and was approved by Grant, Rcpub'
lican President"
would not all the reasons which
Mr.. Hayes presents for vetoing the
bills passed by the Democracy at the
last Congress apply with equal force
to the existing provisions of the law 2
Certainly, and in some cases with
greater force"
WAS enough good done at the ex'
ira session to pay for the trouble oi
convening Congress ?"
"Ycs; | think the repeal of the test
oath and the formation of the improv'
ed system of obtaining impartial juries
were alone a sufficient recompense tc
the country and to Congress for all
the expense and harassment of the
session. 1t is evident that these most
powerful and necessary reforms found
little favor with the President, who