Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1883-02-22


oped mireral resources. SO far as the
pecious metals arc concerned, from a
different point of view, roughly cor.
responding to that of the relation of
production to population. The lead.
ing mining s,a,es are Colorado, Cali.
fornis, Nevada, followed by the terri.
tories OF Utah, Montana, Dakota, Ar
izona and Idaho, in the order named.
The proporti,nate amounts of gold
and of etlver furnished by each
vary greatly. Thus while Colo
ralo produces 40 per cent
OF all the silver in the United States,
she yields but 8 per cent of the
gold. California, on the other hand,
Is the source of over half of the gold
yield, less than 3 per cent of the sil-
YER; and a similar divergence is OBJ.
served in other portions of the min.
ing region, the two precious metals
occurring side by side, but often
in widely disproportlonate quantities..
A DEFENSE OF THE HARBoR STEAL.
Mr.. Page, on behalf of the commit.
tee on commerce, submitted volum-
inous report to accompany the river
harbor bill, which they recommend
The committee advert to the last bill of
this character. They say the presi-
dent, exercising his constitution pre-
rogative, returned the bill to the house
without his approval. Congress, ex-
ercising its constitutional right, by
two.thirds majority Of each house,
passed the bill, Notwithstanding the
objection by the president, and the
bill became law. Republican news
papers in great railroad osnters
raised q hue and cry
against the act and against
those by whose votes 1t passed, boil
stering the attack with every pos.
sible form of Misrepresentation and
personal abuse In the endsavor to
blind the people to their own best In
terests At the re-assembling of con-
gress, the president In his annual
message took occasion again to advert
to the appropriations for rivers and
hsrhors, evidently mlsled by the de.
ceptive official balance sheet and
ex pressed the hope that no similar
measure will be deemed necessary
during the present congress. As If in
harmony with this intimation the Sec
retary war dIsregarded In part several
provisions of the law. He also failed
to furnish the secretary of the treas
ury aud chief engineer's estimates Of
appropriations required for the service
during the fiscal year ending June 80,
1884 as requested to be transmitted to
congress. This left your committee
in the dark. Hence they reported 9
resolution, which was adopted by the
house, calling upon tho secretary Of
war for reports of estimates of the
engineers department aforesaid, ant
certain other information touching
on appropriations and expenditure
for rivers and harbors, to which
the secretary of war returned answer
January 4. 1888. Upon receiving re
ports Of estimates Of the engineer
your committee proceeded to exauin,
thesame, found number Of rive
and hsrbor works would not have (
dollar lett at the expiration Of tn
present fiscal year, that failure ON tn
part of congress to make appropria
tions for the coming fiscal year endln
June SO, 1884, would inevitably resul
In great loss to the government, In th
tnlatter Of 'splant," filing up channel
and otherwise, and that such failur
would be equivalent to throwing ava
the vast sums already expended in tn
interest of commerce and rem
dering worthless many incomplete
improvements, as we'll as subjectin,
many completed works to grett dam
age. Notwithstanding therefore tn
diverse views of the president, you
committee are impelled to present t
the house river and harbor bill, as t.
set otherwise would be q palpa BILE ser!
GUS neglect of their duty to the hous
and to the nation. Yonr COMMITTEE
have endeavored solicitously to fran
such bill only as IL justified In all re
spects by the absolute interests of
general commerce, the ease and Sc
curity of existing navigation, and tn
rigid requirements of public opinions
The report goes on to criticise tn
action Of the president and secretar
of war IN the following language:
GAS to the exercise of the veto pow
or on the last river and harbor bill
while 1t is undeniable that under tn
constitution the president the right t
veto any bill passed by congress, ye
1t is equally undeniable that he shoul
never lightly or unnecessarily exel
else that right In regard to river an
harbor appropriations. The pres
dent, through the secretary of wal
either has power to withhold from ex
penditure any one or all of them, O
he has not the power to Withhold
such expenditure. If the president hs
not power to so withhold, then h
has failed in the obligation to carr
out the law and overstepped tn
bounds prescribed by the constitution
If he has power to 80 withhold, the
veto WAS quite unnecessary. The le
ter FROM the secretary of war gives
list # thirty-one appropriations
the act Of 1882, which the secretar
says have been temporarily withheld
by him at the suggestion Of the pres
dent. The assertion of power
tem porarily withhold carries with
the implication of power to perm
nently withhold, but whether it Is IL
drty of the executive simply to ex'
! cute the law, except in cases where
! 1t is absolutely impracticable
] palpably unconstitutional and
0 that event to so report to congress,
!. a matter upon which this conmitt
d Is not dutiably bound at this time
y express an opinion" The commit
Q goes into very lengthy argument
d defense of the various items appr
It priated by the bill, and ssyH In Co
}, clusion: "The committee on CONNER
n carefully considered the objectio
% made by the secretary of war, Sc