Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-03
SUNDAY........JANUARY 8, 1886.
The Discriminating veto-Again.

calico the ulSCIiuiiuAeinS-'eeV Po"Sa ~
not new. It was made years ago; and,
as we have said heretofore, it was at
first regarded with great favor. Indeed,
Il has not a few advocates even now.
The Boston Herald, whilst pronouncing
. recent article of ours on this subject
"temperate and able." almost spoils
the compliment by adding that that arti-
Gle contained the first objection to
the scheme which that paper had seen.
Our Boston contemporary comments IS
follows:
"The bestowal Of authority to exer-
else discrimination in signing appropri-
alton bills would not, strictly speaking,
give to tho President any new power.
BE can veto the whole Of an appropria-
ton bill now. How can it be called an
increase of his power to permit him to
veto parts Of it?"
II would double his power. Is the
new amendment to be advocated upon
the ground that it curtails his power?
By no means. 1t would make him
both President and Congress. ltwould
unite in him both legislative and execu-
tive functions. Let us illustrate The
Senate now passes upon all House bills.
1t can alter or amend them, or refuse
to pass any portion of them; but if it
alters or amends them, they must be
returned to the House Of Representa-
tiyes for further consideration in this
body. Suppose now that we amend the
Constitution so as to give the Senate
power to strike out any item in such
bills and make law of the rest without
the consent of the lower house isn't it
too plain for argument that the latter
body would be dwarfed, and the Senate
clothed with ten times the power it now
has? Who would advocate such an
amendment to the Constitution? Who
would dare to propose thus to treat
with contumely the peoples representa-
tives? Nobody; and yet it would seem
to be much more reasonable to confer q
power so far-reaching and tremendous
upon the seventy-six senator's than upon
the single occupant Of the Executive
chair.
Our Boston contemporary asks how
it can be called an increase of his power
to permit the President to veto parts Of
a bill all Of which he can now veto
Well, that's amusing. II it isn't ar
increase Of his power-nay, giving hin
an entirely new power without taking
away any part Of his old power.-w'
ask what in the name of common sens'
is it? We need not argue that point.
II is true the members of Congress
have the power to discriminate. 1t Ii
their right and duty as legislators. l
the President ought to have that powe
because they have it, he ought for thu
same reason to have the power to ado
new items to a bill. They have thi
power. But who would advocate thi
proposition? And yet if the Legislative
and executive departments are to b,
mixed up as proposed, the Presiden
might as we'll have this power too
This is all that he would lack Of beinl
an autocrat if he were clothed with tn
discriminating-veto power. The Presi
dent now has ten times as much powe
as the Queen Of England. Give hin
that veto, and be will be as mighty ant
as dictatorial and as unapproachable a
the Gear of ell the Russias.
We do not impugn the President
patriotism when We say we would no
trust him to pass upon items in river
and.harbor bill. The New York edi
tors ridicule appropriations to oil rivers
not known to themselves. A Presiden
Is no better than aD editor. Mr.. CLEvE
LAND has no idea that Staunton rivel
Is worthy of Improvement by the Ma
tional Government.
Our Boston contemporary proceeds
"Copgress could, by a two-thirdi
vote, relnstats any item disapproved BY
the President. II he should be moyes
in his action by narrow local feeling o.
other unjusti6able reason, Congress
could, and no doubt would, oyerrul
him. But under the present log-rollin!
system Of legislation members are oftel
obliged, as Senator Hoar admitted, y
vote Tor improper items in order to Sc
cure the appropriation Of sums that ar
proper and necessary"
The Herald must be joking. A
we said the othsr day, the log-rollin
would be imnsasursbly increased BY
discriminating veto. It would be nj
cessaxy 70 buy with appropriations :
little rivers one sixth moro votes.
Il only necessary now TO got 1853 vots
IN the House Of Representatives,.
the President had the discrininatin
veto, ii would b. necessary to set 81
votes. How the money would fly
This b not gusss-work. A nunbsr I
riysr.aDd-harbor bills have in pa
pears been 90 framed - 10 secure vote
enough TO suspend the rules and pas
The bill BY two-thirds vote. W
dwslt upon this point the othsr day.
The more We reject upon The matte
the les w Ike ths discriminating veto
We are confident that Il will never be
pan Of u Federal Consultation. IL !
not proof ssaiDst discusaien. It, alleges
ne,itos ious features become monsters Q