The daily Panhandle. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1909-12-31
Seats on Sale at Curtis Drug Co. 4

The right to reject n finance bill Is
distinctly stated In Blackstone's
Commentaries and other law treat
ises Of authority. and was never con-
tested until recently.
Over those who deny the Lords
any right to reject finance bills Lord
Lindley wastes no time: There is
overwhelming authority against
them" Those who, like Lord Lore
burn. the Lord Chancellor, Mr.. As
quith and Mr.. Haldane. distin-
gulshed lawyers, contend that while
the Lords have strict legal right
to reject. 1t cannot be exercised con-
stitutionally, he reminds of the con-
trary opinion Of the Liberal leaders
In 1861. when Mr.. Gladstone In the
Commons admitted the right OF the
Lords to reject, while declaring that
they, would be unwise to do so; and
Lord Granville. while, urging the
Lords to pass the budget, told them
that they could always reject it,
They were talking about the right
that though they could not amend
like 1t, they could always reject 1t.
TO make the measures legally bind
ing on the nation.
Lord Lindley makes a distinction
of his own between providing sup
plies and imposing taxes. The
House of Commons" he declares.
never yet imposed any tax without
the corcurrence OF the Crown and
the House of Lords. and has no
right TO do 80" lie shows ingeni-
ously how the sovereign may exer-
else his power of veto if occasion
should arise:
1T is urged that his Majesty can
legally refuse his assent to a finance
| bill. but that II would be unconsti-
tutioDal on his part to do so; and
that the Lords are in no better po-
! sition than he ~ In this respect.
The answer TO this argument is that
his Majesty can both lagally and
constitutionaliy withhold his assent
TO such a bill II he goes the right
way to work. lie personally can
| do no wrong; he must act on the
| a1y,ca 80 N Nipiufar h,,, ba ...x 40
so advised, refuse his assent. He
can do more; he can prorogue or
dissolve Parliament. His Minister
would no doubt run the risk Of i'm
parchment. but II he had acted
wisely G.. IL the bill was so tyr
annical or unfair that a fresh House
OF Commons would not iinpeach
him. or that the House of Lords
would not convict him-the bill
would have been legally and constl-
tutionally defeated, and the Minister
would be justified"
The Lords have rejected what are
called lacking bills. and their right
TO reject them is not now denied
These are only instances OF the ex-
ercise of the right. and do not by
any means exhaust its exercise. ="
summing up his argument Lord
Lindley concludes:
III the difference between franz
ing a budget bill and converting q,
into Law is steadily borne in mind,
no usage OF Parliament can be
shown which IS inconsistent with
the right Of the House of Lords to
refuse assent to fnance bill which
the House is convinced ought not to
become Law.
Considering the serious conse-
auenees OF rejecting the finance bill.
the House OF Lards would be abus-
Ing It's power n II refused to assert
70 sRy finance btu unless. on fun
consideration. the House came to
the conclusion that II would b.
against the iatsrest Of the nation to
pass IT, The fact that be Horse has
not refused itS assent to any On snce
hil fnr many years fercep, IN lskoy
By 10 means shows ;kx> tie rishi