The San Francisco call., 1896-06-04
Hill Says That Democrats Should
Stand by the Presidents
Judgment,
BUT FINDS FEW SUPPORTERS
When Put to the Vote There Are
Only Five Directors to the
Measure.

tive votes came from Democratic Sena-
tors, namely: Bate, Chiffon, Hill, Smith
and Villas. The debate preceding the vote
occupied four hours. Speeches in favor of
overriding the veto were made by Senators
Vest Of Missouri, Sherman of Ohio, Petit
grew of South Dakota, Berry of Arkansas,
Stewart of Nevada, Hawley OF Connecti-
cut and Butler of North Carolina.
Speeches in favor of sustaining the veto
were made by Smith. Villas, Bate and Hill
the latter introducing joint resolution
to amend the constitution by giving the
President power to veto any items in an
appropriation bill, power which the con-
stitution of the State of New York gives
to the Governor of that State. Petit
crews speech characterized the veto
power as relic of the past, which has no
place in free government. He denounced
the President in severe terms, charging
him with an utter disregard of his sacred
oath of office, with overriding the laws,
influencing Congressman by the use of
patronage, enriching the favorltes at the
public expense, and, in fact, permitting no
restraint by his imperial will.
Immediately after the morning prayer,
the reading of the journal having been
dispensed with the Senate, by a vote of
3S ayes to 10 noes agreed to motion by
Vest CD of Missouri to proceed to the
consideration of the Presidents veto of
the river ana harbor bill, despite an OBJ
lection by Pettigrew (R.) of South Dakota,
who desired TO proceed with the consider
alton of the conference report on the
Indian appropriation bill. Negative votes
" rip hu Rafa Rrotyn Chiffon Har-
ris, Palmer, Pettigrew, Pritchard, Morrill,,
Teller and Villas. The Vice President
stated the question to be on the passage of
the bill, the objections of the President to
the contrary Notwithstanding. Vest said
that there were statements in the Presi-
dents message as to eaich, with all due
respect to the President and his high office,
something should be said in defense of the
two houses of Congress. He should en-
deavor to say just as much about the bill and
the message as was absolutely necessary
and no more. While unquestionably the
President of the United States had the
constitutional power to exercise his veto
prerogative it was not the idea of the con-
stitution that that veto power should be
exercised as one of the ordinary instru-
mentalities of administering government.
The veto power had been exercised only
seven times in the first twenty-eight years
of the Government-twice by Washington
and five times by Madison. Never by John
Adams or Thomas Jefferson.
Vest proceeded to discuss the message in
detail, and pointed out various mac
curacies in it. The President, Vest said,
had charged Congress with extravaganza,
h1t if praoi6ant haH tn ba
river and harbor bills enacted in the last
six years he would have discovered that,
considering the size OF the country and the
demands of internal commerce, the bill
was comparatively economical.
Sherman (R.) OF Ohio gave reasons why
he should vote for the passage of the bill,
notwithstanding the Presidents objec-
tions. In the first place he did not think
that such an appropriation bill ought ever
TO be vetoed under any circumst tances. 1t
was not a mandatory provision, but
merely permissive one. If the Secretary
OF the Treasury said there was mo money
in the treasury not otherwise appro-
priated," he was not bound TO expend it.
So that the President had complete con-
troll of the whole matter. Therefore he
could not conceive a case where such a
bill should be vetoed.
Congress, Sherman declared, ought to
stand by its exclusive power to appropri-
ate money, leaving to the President the
expenditure OF it only when there is suf-
hclent money in the treasury for the pur
pose. He could not imagine veto which
he would support. Instead of seven vetoes
in the first twenty-eight years of the Gov
ernment vetoes came to one .house or the
other now almost every day. Congress
| or oh ha
exercise of the veto power.
Villas CD of Wisconsin said that al
though the State of Wisconsin had been
llperally treated in the bill he could not
bring himself to face the. conviction that
under present circumstances the large APP
preparations in it ought not to be added to
the weight of obligations already imposed
upon the distressed shoulders of the
| people.
Arguments in favor of the passage of the
bill were made by Berry (D.) of Arkansas,
Pettigrew (R) of South Dakota, Stewart
(Pop.) of Nevada and Hawley (R.) of Con-
necticut.
Bate (D.) of Tennessee asserted that the
issuance of bonds was behind the bill, or
else tariff law that would overtop even the
Mckinley act. Hill Cd OF New York up
heid the veto power against the criticism
upon 1t, and reminded the Democratic side
OF the cham ber that President Jackson had
inaugurated the vetoIng of the river and
harbor bills, having in 1882 returned to
Congress one with his objections. The
veto now under consideration, Hill said,
was based on the grounds of expediency,
laying stress on the enormous amounts to
be expended now and in the near future.
After painstaking consideration of the
whole measure-more careful and extern
slVe than most Senators could have given
to 1.-THE President has refused to approve
the bill and he (HilD thought that the
residents action should be sustained
rather than overruled. As one who had
voted against the bill on its original pas
sage the message had confirmed his con-
vlcuons of its undesirability as whole at
the present time. He regretted that the
constitution did not give the President
more power to veto particular items in an
appropriation bill. Such power had ex-
listed for many years in New York and
other States and there was no disposition
anywhere to abandon it. He introduced
JOINT resolution proposing an amendment
TO the constitution giving the President