The record-union., 1896-06-04
AL the Negative Votes Come From
the Democratic Senators.
Pittigrew (Rep.) of South Carolina, in
a Speech Advocating the Passage
of the Bill Over the Veto, De-
nounces the President i'm Severe
Terms, Charging Him With Utter
Disregard of His Sacred Office and
With Overriding the Laws.

With Overriding the Laws.
WASHINGTON, June 3-The Senate
to-day followed the example set yester-
Gay by the House in passing by a vote
of 56 to ) the river and harbor bill over
the Presidents veto. The five mega
tive votes came from Democratic Sena-
tors Bate, Chiffon, Hill, Smith and vi
las. The debate preceding the vote oc-
cupied four hours. Speeches in favor of
overriding the veto were made by Sena-
tors Vest, Sherman, Pettigrew, Berry.
Stewart Hawley and Butler. Speeches
in favoring of sustaining the veto We're
made by Senators Smith, Villas, Bate
and Hill-the latter introducing a joint
resolution to amend the Constitution
by giving the President power to veto
any items in an appropriation bill-a
power which the Constitution of the
State of New York gives to the Cover
nor of that State. Pet1grew's speech
characterized the veto power as relic
of the past, which has no place in free
Government He denounced the Presi-
dent in severe terms, charging him with
an utter disregard of his sacred oath of
encing Congressman by the use of pat
ronage and enriching the fayorites at
the public expense.
Immediately after the morning
prayer. the reading OF the journal hav-
ing been dispensed with, the Senate by
a vote of SO yeas to 10 nays agreed to a
motion by Vest (Dem.) of Missouri to
proceed to the consideration of the
bor bill, despite an objection by Petit
grew (Rep) of South Dakota, who de-
sired to proceed with the consideration
of the conference report on the Indian
appropriation bill. Bate, Brown, Chill
ton, Harris, Palmer, Pettigrew, Pritch-
ard, Morrill,, Teller and Villas voted in
the negative.
The Vice-President stated the ques-
tfon to be on the passage Of the bill,
the objections of the President to the
contrary Notwithstanding
Vest said there We're statements II
the Presidents message which with all
due respect to the President and his
office, something should be said in de-
fense of the two houses of Congress.
He should endeavor to say just as much
about the bill and messag as was abso-
lutely necessary, and no more. While
unquestionably the President of the
United States had the constitutional
power to exercise his veto preroga tive
1t was not the intention of the Constitu-
dIon that the veto power should be ex-
eTcised as one of the ordinary instru-
1nentalities of administering the Gov
eminent. The veto power had been ex-
ercised 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
6E detail, and pointed out various in
accuracies in it. The President, Vest
said, had charged Congress with ex-
travagance; but if the President had
turned to the river and harbor bills en-
acted in the last six years he would
have discovered THAI, considering the
size of the country and the demands of
internal commerce, the bill was COM
parative1y economical
sherman (Rep) of Ohio gave reasons
why he should vote for the passage Of
the bili Notwithstanding the Presidents
objections. In the first place, he did
not think that such an appropriation
bill ought ever to be vetoed under any
circumstances. IT was not a manda-
tory provision, but merely a permissive
one. If the Secretary of the Treasury
said. that there was mo money in the
treasury not otherwise appropriated, I"
he was not bound to expend it. SO that
the President had complete control Of
the whole matter Therefore he could
not conceive a case where such bill
should be vetoed. Congress, Sherman
said, ought to stand by its exclusive
power to appropriate money, leaving to
the President the expenditure Of it only
when there is sufficient money in the
treasury for the purpose. He could not
imagine veto which he would support
Instead of seven yeteos in the first
twenty-eight years of the Government
vetoes came to one house or the other
now almost. every day. Congress ought
to curb or check, if possible, the ex-
ercise OF the veto power.
Villas (Dem) of Wisconsin said that
although the State of Wisconsin had
been literally treated in the bill. he
could not bring himself to face the con-
viction that under present eircum-
stances the large appropriations 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 bin were made by Berry Oem.) of
Arkansas, Pettigrew (Ren.) of South
Dakota, Stewart (Pop) of Nevada, and
Ha"ley (Rep) of Connecticut.
Bate (Bem.) of Tennessee asserted
thattheissuance of bonds was behind the
hiil. or else tariff law that would over
top even the Mckinley Act.
Hill Dem.) of New York upheld the
veto power against the criticism upon
it, and reminded the Democratic side of
the chamber that Presidents Jackson had
inaugureted the vetoing Of the river and
harbor bills, having In 1892 returned 10
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
10 be expended now and In the near fu-
ture. After a painstaking considera-
tion of the whole measure-more careful
and extensive than most Senators could
have given it the President had re-