The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1880-05-29

commons over the purse anu the sworn
England. The King was denied supplies III
less he offered redress for long existing gre
ances, and redress came in response to the PEE
pies memorable demand. In the current nun
Der OF the Nineteenth Century magazine NJ
Lowe. the ex-chancelor of England discussl
the relation of parliamentary history to III
cause of British liberty and to the redress {
grievances by the Crown. La the course of III
article the cy'chancellor says
Most of the nations of Europe had som
kind of parliament, but the parliament q
! England has alone been able to preserve ii
power un,arnsheu and unrrOkcn Why WA
this' Ii was simply because, by the happ
constitution of England, the power of tn
| purse was reserved 10 the commons
! An ambitious and wnrlike king, unable to live
on the revenues OF his crown, was Obliged Il
come for money to the parliament, and tn
parliament granted him q subsidy In consider
alton of the abatement OF some partcula
grievance, and thus by degrees VIC bought our
selves tree of all our expressions. The com
mons still retain the right Of the purse; NJ
money can be granted without their assent
and thus they have become the principal pow
Ter in the realm. The right Of refusal draws
after il the right of being furnished with tho
grounds upon which the money is required
and consequently the right Of being consulted
AS 20 the policy for which the money is being
spent"
The facts set forth in this quotation were cy
identity present to the mind OF the founders OF
the American system who, in creating the
popular branch of Congress, plainly designed
that it should be, like the English house OF
commons, the immediate representative OF the
masses in preserving the franchises of free
people. 1t WAS clearly anticipated by them
that arbitrary power might be assumed by the
Chief Executive and entertainments thereby
cssayed upon the domain OF popular freedom
and means Of redress became therefore an Is.
sentlal part Of the system which they made.
This vital point engaged the special attention
oc James Madison, the accredited father of the
constitution itself and, referring to it in the
F,deraiist, he says:
The house OF representatives can not only
refuse but they alone can propose, the sup,
plies requisite for the support Of the govern
mcnt. This power over the purse may, In
fact be regarded rs the most complete and Of.
tcctual weapon with which any constitution
can arm the immediate representatives of the
people for obtaining a redress Of every gricv.
ancc, and for carrying into effect every just
and salutary measure
THIS statement by Mr.. Madison with refer.
cncc to the practical operation of our repre-.
sentative system Is in perfect harmony with
ex Chancellor Loves portrayal OF the English
house of commons, and presents marked
contrast to the attitude Of the republican lead.
ers as indicated by President layes's recent
messages vetong the appropriation bills.
These messages are based upon the aSsump.
ton that the representatives of the people have
no right To assert conditions limiting the ap.
plcati.n of public treasure in the public ser.
vice, and upon the further assumption that
the voice of the MASSES can not restrain the
"discrctlon" of the Executive. Mr.. Hayes is
the first occupant Of the presidential chair
who has vcntured to revive those teachings of
the Crown which provoked the courageous
barons when assembled at Runnymedc, and
which King John WAS forced to surrender in
presence of the great Charter. But, being.thc
first he is to be- also, the last executive who
shall confront American trecmCn with such
an assumption of power The inevitable tri-
umph of the democracy in November will
re.eslabllsh the doctrines that IN
sprcd the earliest commons of Great Britain
and that likewise impeled the founders of the
system which James Madison portrayed -
St1te RegiS'sr