Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1882-12-07

1t is apparent by this exhibit that so far as
concerns most Of the items to which the act sf
August 2nd 1882 relates, there can be no need of
further appropriations until after the close of tic
present session. 1t, however, any action should
be necessary In respects to particular objects it
would be entirely feasible to provide for those OBJ
jeets by appropriate legislation, It is possible.
tor example that delay until the assembling OF
the next congress to make additional
provis,onl for the Mississippi river improve
ment might be attended with serious con-
sequences. If such should appear to be the
case, a just bill relating to that subj eot would
command my approval. This leads me to offer
a suggestion which trust win commend itself te
the wisdom Of congress. Is 1t net advisable that
the grants of large sums of m oney for divers and
independent schemes of internal Improvement
should be made ths subjects Of separate and dig
tnct Legislative enactnents- It will hardly be
gainsaid even BY those who favor the most liberal
expenditures for suoh purposes as are sougA to
be accomplished by what is commonly called the
river and haIbor bin, that the practice of group
ing in saeh bin appropriations for a great d.
versity OF objects widely separated either in their
nature or the locality with which they are con-
eefnsd, or IN both, as one which is much to bs
deprecated its Inevitable tendency is 10 secure
the success Of the bill as whole, though many
Of the items if separately considered could scares
~ fail of rei ecton. By the adoption of the
l have recommended, every member of congress
when an opportunity should arise for giving his
influence and yste for nenEOrtOus appropriations,
would be enabled 90 to do without being called
upon re sanction others undessrving Of his ap-
proval. So, also, would the executive be afforded
full opportunity to exercise his constitutional pre-
rogativc of opposing whatever appropriations
seemed to him Questionable, without iaperiling
the success of others which commended the,,sslVes
to his judgment. 1t may be urged N opsos5don
to these sugg, stions that the number of works Of
internal improvement which are justly entitled 10
governmental aid IS 80 great as 10 render imprse
tieable separate appropriation bills therefor ard
even for sach comparatively limited number
make disposition of large sums of money. This
objestion may be well founded, and whethes 1t be
Of not, the advantages that wsuld be likely Ia
ensue by the adoption Of the course I have re-
commended may perhaps be mere efectuany at
tanned by another which I respectfully submit to
congress an alternative rroposHsn.
1t is provided by the constitutions of Ii Of our
states that the executive may disapprove any
item Or items of bill appropriating money,
whereupon part Of the bill approved shall be Law
and the part disapproved shall fail to becsms
law, unless repassed, according to the proviSopa
prescribed for the passage Of bills over the veto
Of the executive The states wherein some such
provisions, as the foregoing, is fundamental
law, are Alabama, Colorado Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Missouri Nebraska, New jersey
New York, PENIS 5lvania and West Virginia.