The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-08-05
The Discriminating Veto.

r.o message Of the President OF the
limited States vetoing the river ana na,poi
hin has, Il IL not unlikely, destroyed wna =.
sver nrospect there was before ne sen. II
,r,o Congress OF securing ct an early gay
arch an amendment Of the FedcrM oons.'-
.,,,on a. would give to the President the
power to veto part, and approve part %
anv such bill coming before him lot n'S
s,crs,ure. Nevertheless resolution 10
amend the Constitution was offered In the
House Of Representatives on THURSDAY oy
Mr. DAVIS. Of Illinois, providing thai the
president III the amendment be raiihea)
NAV disapprove any item Of bill sppro-
nriating money and embracing distihc'
Mems. while approving the others
II is easy to understand how such an
amendment would operate. Mr.. ARTHUR
has told the country how he would treat
Hill appropriating money for the improve.
ment Of rivers and harbors. Many o.
the appropriations in the bill which az
vetoed he declared to be "not clearly 'o'
the general welfare and not benehcent il
their character" Suppose he had had Ih'
right to use the discriminating Ve'o' "n''
would have been his actiony Vi course he
would have vetoed many meritorlous
items because he did not consider Shehi
such. The New river, the Little Kanawha,
the Monongabela, and various other west
Virginia rivers, would no doubt have had
to get along without any money contripu-
t;on from The Federal Government to and
in the improvement OF their Navigation
The James and the Potomac, and possibly
the Rappahannock and Appomattox, might
have shared the Presidents favor; but
come Of the smaller appropriations would
have been stricken from the bill. SO all
over the Union.
The President is not the proper person
to appropriate the peoples money; and he
would lack that minute information pos
sessed by their representatives in Congress.
And what demoralizing effect 1t would
have upon congressman to be compelled 10
90 I'm person to the President and beg him
TO allow their constituents to share in the
bounty of the Government. The Presl'
dent is already the most potent ruler in the
world. Surely it would not be well to add
to his autocratic powers.
The demoralizing tendency OF such an
amendment of the Constitution would have
a duplex operation: 1t would, ON the one
hand, make the peoples representatives
mere dependents upon the Presidents
bounty and goodwill, and, upon the other,
would inevitably cause the same representa-
tives to be grossly careless as to what sort
OF items were incorporated into river and
harbor bill. They would argue that as the
President was to be the Judge in the last
resort it was useless for them to trouble
themselves upon the subject.
Again: Mr.. ARTHUR regards the appro-
priation Of the public money "for the ben
eft Of the particular localities in which it
is proposed to make the improvements as
unconstitutional A most absurd conclu-
sion, truly. But he has his opinion; and
If he had the discriminating veto, all the
bills to improve rivers would be constitu-
tional or unconstitutional, as he might hap
pen TO opine.
On the whole, we conclude that the dis
eliminating veto power will not become a
part OF the Presidents rights for long
time to come.