Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-12-22
TUESDAY......D DECEMBER o. 1885,
The Discriminating Veto.

If is reported that Mr.. RANDALL
now that the rules Of the House have
been so amended as to take the control
of appropriations from the hands OF
single committee, proposes to bring Tor
ard an amendment to the Constitution
giving the President power to veto sepa'
rate items in appropriation bills while
approving Of the remainder.
The New York Times, speaking on
this subject, says that the Governor oil
that State has exercised a similar
power for many years, and the benefits
are so generally recognized that pro-
position TO take it away would receive
practically no support whatever.
Because the discriminating veto has
proved to be q success in State is not
conclusive evidence that it would prove
4. success in the United States. The
Governor Of a State has such an init
mate personal acquaintance with the
wants of that State, that he can act in
diligently upon almost any bill that
may be presented to him for approval.
So, also, it might be perfectly safe to
allow the mayor Of city a discrimi-
mating veto power.
But 10 confer such power upon the
President of the United States is another
matter. He is already clothed with
more power than he ought to have.
The Queen of England hasn't half as
much.
The reader knows, so We have as
sumed, what discriminating veto is.
1t is the power to veto certain items in
any bill passed by Congress, and ap-
prove and make laws Of the other items.
1t would, for instance, have allowed
President ARTHUR to veto all the
items in the river and harbor bill of
1884 which he, a New Yorker devoted
to the interests Of New York, might
have thought proper to veto. What
chance would Staunton river, or
Dan river, or New river, or the Kappa
hammock, stand of ever being improved
by the General Government if New
Yorker had tine power to veto all appro-
priations made by Congress for the i'm
provement Of the navigation Of those
rivers?
Even now too many congressman
dance attendance upon the President of
the United States claiming offices for
their friends, and bending the supple
hinges Of the knee that patronage may
follow fawning. Let the power to veto
items in river and harbor bill, or a
bill to provide for erecting Government
buildings, or any other money bill, be
entrusted to the President, and there
after he will be both Congress and Pre-
sident. Why should congressman scru'
tinize bill which is to be remodelled
by him? Why should they waste time
in convincing the Senate or House o.
Representatives Of the merits of bill
whose merits they will be compelled
to show to him?
Again Sectionalism would gain
new lease of life from the diScrimina
ting veto. In the national conventions
Of both parties, it would be deemed
highly important by each section tina
the next President should come iron
that section. The Mississippi Vallel
could net afford to allow strict con
structionist to be elected. Such maj
as Mr.. CLEVELAND could not hav
been elected last year if the discriml
mating veto had then been one Of tn
prerogatiyes Of the President. Nh
BLAINE would have beaten him be
cause he resided in New York, who's
Congressman, too many Of them
least, seem to know Of no meritoriou
schemes except such as promise to cor
tribute TO the wealth and domination (
the empire State and city.
Or let US suppose that the Presidei
had the power to veto as many item
rs he might choose to veto Of b
laying . tariff. Upon what articl
would he allow the tariff to be higl
Upon what articles would he allow a.
duties? Is there q man anywhere W
would be willing to entrust such
power to the President? Would
sugar-gowers? Would the rice-gro
ers? Would the tobacco-manufac
rers Of Virginia be willing to submit
President having the discriminate
veto . tariff bill which, as the pres'
Law does, lays . tax Of fifty cents
pound upon all imported manufactuI
tobacco, in order TO offset the effect
the internal tax on manufactured
bacco, and thus prevent foreign CO..
| tries from flooding this country W
tobacco that had not paid eight ce
per pound, and therefore could be s.
- cheaper here than could our own
bacco?
The discriminating veto is a PLAY
bic thing, but will not stand the test
experience, nor even Of scrutiny.
----------s-~----