The Washington times., 1905-02-13
Troubles Other Presidents
Have Had With the Senate

Have Had With the Senate
President Roosevelt's break with the
Senate over the arbitration treaties has
had no parallel in the relations between
any previous Executive and the upper
house of Congress.
The nearest approach to it occurred at
the close of C1evelands second admin
istration. when there were strained reia-
tions between the President and Senate
over what the latter regarded as usur-
patton of power.
On Cuban Independence.
On December Is, 1885, the Committee
on Foreign Relations reported the Cam
eron resolution recognizing the inde-
pendence of Cuba. This was done after
Secretary of State Richard olney had
appeared before the committee and
urged that no such action be taken
The next day, before the Senate had a
chance to take up the resolution Mr.
Ofney startled the country by issutFlg
q statement warning the Senate that
the executive branch of the Government
would regard any such resolution as
null and void If passed
Secretary Olney spoke for the Presi-
dent as well as himself He issued his
statement, not as MIR. Roosevelt did. in
the form of a letter. but in the form of
statement to the press. He declared
that If Congress passed the Cameron
resolution it should be regarded only
.sas an expression OF opinion by the en-
trent gentlemen who vote for 1t.
The power to recognize the So-called
State declared the Secretary, rests
exclusively with the Executive. a reso-
luton on the subject by the Senate or
By the House. by both bodies or by one,
nqf her,
i've as legislation, and is important only
advice of great weight, Yoluntaf1Iy
rendered to the Executive regarding the
manner in which ne shall exercise his
constitutional functions
Cleveland Won Out.
Extremely bitter feeling was aroused
by this action, and there was a great
deal of talk as to what the Senate
would do to convince the President of
its disapprobation of his course. Cooler
heads found however, that it was use
less TO pass resolutions which the Presi-
dent would not execute. The only pos
sfble course left was to impeach the
Executive Thjs was not attempted, and
SO the view OF constitutional prerogatiye
maintained by Cleveland and Olney was
practically upheld.
In President Cieyeland's s first Admin
iS1Faton there was another case IN
which the rights of President and Sen
ate We're the subject of dispute. The
fight was over Cleyelands 5 action in re-
fIsing 10 give his reasons for removing
certain postmasters and other officials
left over from the Arthur Admin{stra-
ton The President won and no effort
has since been made TO compel any
President to publish the reasons for re-
moving or appointing officials.
Johnson's Losing Fight.
The bitterest fights generally have not
been over questions of principle. The
bitterest OF all was actually over party
policy, though in form it was over ques-
tions of constitutional rights.
President Johnson's reconstruction pol
Icy infuriated the radicals, as they were
then called. Secretary Stanton sided
with them. The President tried TO get
him out OF the Cabinet, and Congress
rassed the tenure of Office act This
practically prevented the President from
getting rid OF any Of his advisers. The
President disregarded the law and the
result was his Impeachment by the
House in 1865. Only the Independence of
five Republican Senators saved the
country from having a President driven
from office as the result of a factional
quarrel
Garfield and Hayes.
Next TO this the bitterest fight was
that between President Garfield and the
Senate in 1881, which was ended by his
ASSASSINATION. This had nothing 10 do
with any principle unless Senatorial
courtesy" can be elevated into a prin-
ciple. Senatorial courtesy bound the
Senate to stand by any Senator who
objects to an appointment IN his own
State. and it stood by Conkling when he
fought the nomination of William H
Robertson as collector of the port of
New York. because the President as it
vas charged, broke a bargain regarding
patronage
The great fight in President Hayes
Administration, in which the House
starved the Administration out by re-
fusing 10 pass appropriation bills for the
support of the Government. needs only
a mention. as It furnishes no parallel
for the present case. That was a party
matter entirely, the Democrats being in
control Of the House and being engaged
N Z fight to secure the insertion of u
clause in an appropriation bill which
would relieve the South from military
domination. In this fight the House
WAS successful
The two Cleveland eases are the only
3nes in which there is any resemblance
70 the present fight but in neither did
the Senate take the view, as il does
now, that some of its important CON
stitutional rights are in danger Of being
usurped by the Executive Hence
CieveiaHd's 5 success cannot he quoted
as 4 precedent at the present time