Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-10
TUESDAY...........JANUARY 10, 1888.
The Discriminating Veto.

tion that such an amendment shall he
made to the Federal Constitution as will
enable the President 20 veto portion OF
the items in appropriation bills and
make laws of the rest. We are surprised
TO learn that Mr. RANDALL is in favor OF
50 Objectionable n proposItion-a propo-
sition in fact which would convert our
National or Federal Government into a
miserable mongrel, neither republican
government nor constitutional mo-
nsrchy.
The proposition is in effect to convert
the Presidents negative into an ailirma
tive power. 1t is scheme to confuse
and confound the duties Of the Execu-
tive with those of the Legislative depart
ment Of the Government. 1t is Il method
of putting the governmental train IN
charge Of the brakeman.
Give the President this power, and
Congress viii at once be dwarfed into
insignificance. Every congressman who
shall bsve secured an appropriation for
his distric, will have 10 appear in person
before the President and show cause why
his itom should not be stricken from the
appropriation bill Hemust surrender his
independence in other matters in order
- get the President 10 stand by him IN
this matter Instead Of being the proud
representative Of an, independent con-
stituency, lie will become a waiter upon
Providence. He will cool his heels IN
tine ante-rooms OF the White House and
recall with SORROW and shame the day
when the lobby considered him an Off
cial Of some dignity.
Mr.. CLEVELAND refused TO sign the
river and harbor bill last year. Why
Was il because he was not willing TO
improve the rivers of New York, or Penn
sylyania, or Virginia. or Massachusetts,,
or anv other State with whose rivers he
was familiar? Oh, no. The reason was
that there were a hundred rivers
mentioned in the bill of which he knew
nothing The representatives IN whose
districts these rivers ran knew their
claims upon the bounty of the Govern
ment, but the President did not. BY
the way, nearly every item i'll river
and harbor bill is always meritorious, or
il a few lack merit, they are SO small
that il Is shame and a wrong to veto the
bill on their account.
Hours nay, days-are consumed 10y
the congressman interested i'll river and
harbor and other appropriation bills
and by their constituents, III impressing
upon the proper committee the merlto-
robustness Of every several item. How
unreasonable and vexatlous and useless
and wrong TO require them 10 renew and
repeat their labors before the President.
Indeed, he could not possibly perform
perfectly the duties of his Office if he
were required to passupon every separate
item in river and harbor bill. or any
other bill containing large number of
appropriations. He should take it for
granted "that the court knows some
thing"
The veto power is now a mere mega
tive. Congress frames bills and the
President has the right to veto them or
10 make them laws The scheme under
consideration would make him portion
Of the Legislative Department of the
Government and clothe him with more
power than either house OF Congress
possesses. In order to see this propo-
sition in its naked deformity, we must
look at il as 1t would appear to us if 1t
were proposed TO confer the discrimi-
mating veto upon the Speaker of the House
of Representatives or the President OF the
Senate. Who would dare to make such
a suggestion in earnest ? Andye We can
think of no good reason why the power
might not as well be conferred upon either
OF those officers as upon the President of
the United States. The last is not one
whit more responsible TO the people of
the whole country than the first two.
Indeed President of the United States
in Office would not feel the public pulse
so carefully as would Speaker or q
President Of the Senate.
Or LET us suppose that the proposition
here changed no as to provide that when
the House Of Representatives sent an
appropriation bill to the Senate. the
Senate shall have power to strike out all
items Objectionable TO that body and to
make laws Of the rest OF the items with
out the consent of either the House Of
Repres. natives or Of the President of
the United States This would DO
better amendment to the Constitution
than the other. II might be made
still better by giving the House Of Rep
rcsentatiyes power to exercise the dis
eliminating veto after the bill goes back
TO that body from the Senate. But
where is the man who would advocate
either Of these last schemes
Possibly the discriminating veto might
answer good purpose in the hands Of a
State Governor. lie would be likely to
know the merits OF most Of the items OF
an appropriation bill. But not 80 with a
President Of the United States. II is i'm
possible that he should be thus equipped.
There are thousands of items IN the sew
eral appropriation bills annually passed
by Congress aud il would be nothing
but pretence for him to set himself up
as competent to pass judgment upon
their merits seyerally.