New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-04-16
"RJDERsn ON INTERPOLATION Bills

It seems best to some Republican members of
Congress to refrain from opposition to the Army
APPROXIMATION bill because, in their opinion,
the political rider affixed thereto is not par
ticularly Objectionable. Some are influenced
by the fact that the Republicans themselves,
for very different purposes, have at times
coupled political legislation with appropriation
bills Yet If legislation Of this sort is improper,
the Democrats can find no justification for an
imprOper act in the fact that the Republicans
set q bad example. The truth is, however, that
there is O radical difference between the course
of the two parties In this particular. At any
time, and under any circumstances, the coupling
of general legislation with necessary appropria-
ton bills is wrong. But the evil becomes one
of the gravest and most dangerous character
when the object is to force the Executive to
surrender his constitutional power Of objection.
In any case, the bills appropriating money
for the necessary expenses OF the Government
ought to be considered, in Congress and by the
Executive, apart from any connection with gen.
eral legislation. The reason Is obvious. The
appropriations are made in pursuance Of laws
already enacted, and are absolutely necessary,
not only to the proper enforcement Of those
laws, but to the conduct of the Government.
A member OF Congress may feel that 1t Is
wholly within his discretion whether he shall
vote In favor of an increase or decrease of
officials whether he shall vote for or against
an Improvement involving expenditure of public
money. But member of Congress must be
strangely lacking in patriotism or In respect
fer law, If he conceives that he is ut liberty to
vote against any appropriation for the payment
of salaries of judges Of the Supreme Court, or
executive officers, or for the pay Of the Army or
Navy Such appropriations are to meet debts,
incurred under existing laws, and it is National
dishOnor to refuse prompt payment of them.
If a member wants to change the existing laws
in any respect, he has the right to offer sepa-
rate bills for that purpose. But to refuse to
vote money which the Government is honOrably,
lawfully and equitably bound to pay, Is the part
of factionist and revOlutionist. Men who
resort to such means, in order to force others
to consent to a change of laws, adopt the rule
or ruin policy. They prefer anarchy to Gov
eminent which they cannot control, and arc not
fit for any part whatever in self-gOvernment.
THE case was different under monarchical
government. StOppage Of supplies was some
times the only mode of restraining monarch
from acts not warranted by any law. The rep
resentative element had no other means Of
making the will of the people respected by the
monarchical element. No such excuse exists
In O free government. The executive and tho
legislative branches alike represent the people,
and have functions defined by law. The people
can control either branch, within the time con-
stitutionally fixed, by free elections. Neither
branch can claim to represent the people any
more than the other, and if either attempts to
coerce the other its conduct cannot be excused
as defence Of the people, but must be attrib-
uted to an unseemly quarrel between servants
Of the same sovereign, or to revolutionary and
unlawful designs.
The attempt Of the Democrats to nullify laws
which they have tried in vain to repeal, and to
deprive the President of his constitutional right
Of objection to such notification, is essentially
revolutionary. 1t aims to cripple the executive
branch of the Government. 1t tends to break
down the constitutional distribution of power
into three coordinate branches, and to usurp all
power for the accidental majority in either
House of Congress For, If both houses can
properly coerce the executive by fastening gem
eral legislation upon bill making necessary
appropriations, either house can in the same
manner cOerce the other, and precisely this was
attempted by the Democratic majority in the
House at the last regular session 1t is not pos
sible to conceive of any step, short Of actual
appeal to armed force, which would be more
strictly revolutionary, Or more dangerous to
free government, than this attempt by one
house or by both to cOerce other branches Of
the Government.
It is high time for the Executive to put stop
to such unlawful and revolutionary proceed
ings. 1t Is unlawful to set aside existing laws by
refusing to provide the necessary means for
their enforcement, and It is revolutionary for