The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-21
The Discriminating Veto.

The more we reject up0u INC sup1S"ss
the less we like the proposition to aTend
tho Federal Constitution so as to permit
The President Of the United States 10 veto
such Of the items Of an appropriation bin
n he disapprcves and TO mako laws Of such
of the items Of the same as he approves.
The President Of the United States has
already more power than any other ruler
In Christcndom. He Is not the proper OH
cial to appropriate the peoples money.
To. give him the discriminating veto
A 70 make him more than the equal
OF the members OF the two houses OF
Congress IN the matter OF disposing OF that
money. The Senate can do nothing more
than propose amendments to an sppropria-
zion bill thst has been passed by the House
Of Representatives. Itrquires majority
of either house to strike out an item pat
into such bin by either house. Yet the
rroposiuon under consideration is to con-
fer upon the Executive otonly legislative
powers but greater legislative powers than
are possessed by either house OF Congress.
III the House Of Representatives disiikes
a Senate amendment appropriating money
TO a certain river, all it can Go is to strike
out that amendment when the same mas
been stricken ont, the bill! must 20 back 10
the Senate for its concurrence. SO as TO an
appropriation popular in the House OF
Representatives and unpopular in the Sem
ate. II such an appropriation be strick-
en- out in the Senate after the bill has
been passed by the House OF Representa-
fivcs the bill must 20 back TO the House OF
Representatives for the concurrence OF
the latter body. But II the proposed
constitutional amendment shall become
mart OF the Federal Constitution, the Pre-
sident of the United States can appropriate
the public money to half the rivers men,
Toned In an appropriation bill, and refuse
to allow the other half Of them TO have
dollar for their Improvement, let both
houses OF Congress-compoSed OK the pco-
ple's eprcsentatives-say and do what they
Will. Nay, more: he can discriminate in
fayor,of the rivers OF his own State and
section and against those of other States
and sections, and nobody can gainsay him.
He can strike out every item which does
not promise to benefit his own State, or
which is intended to improve a river bear
ing the commerce Of Il city considered 4
rival Of bis own city.
Alr. robson, of New jersey. said re-
Gently that the papers which antagonized
the bill passed by Congress at its last ses-
sion for the improvement OF rivers and
harbors were controlled by or speaking in
the interest OF railroad monopolists. What
chance would the Mississippi river have,
under the proposed amendment, for an APP
preparation not approved by VANDERBILT
and GOULD ii these millionaires could con-
vince the President Of the United States.
he being New Yorker, that to improve
the Mississippi was to damage New York
city?
No congressman ought to be compelled
10 20 to the President to ask him to allow
an appropriation to the congressnlan'S
home-river TO remain III an appropriation
bill GEORGE ID. WISE would, under the
operation OF the proposed amendment
have to become n suppliant at M. ARTuUR's
feet. Ought he to be forced 10 play such a
humiliating role! Ought Democratic
congressman 10 be placed ut such disad-
vantage in the presence Of powers Would
he appear before the present President as
the equal OF 4 Republican congressman !!
Nay, would a Iali-Brced Republican ap-
pear before Mr.. ARTHUR with half rs good
prospect o, securing an appropriation as
would stalwart. TO say the least, we
doubt II.
All these questions viii be fully dis
cusscd in Congress before that body sub
mits the amendment in question to the
several State Legislatures for their ratiiica'
ton. The discussion viii, unless we are
mistaken, result in remanding the propo-
sition to the sentimental politicians who
originated it. 4" Poetical politics." to quote
Mr.. KEILEY's and Mr.. THURMAN's phrases
"won't do"