Year: 1879

derstood. -
\
. Mr.. Sherman's suggestion in regard to


the propriety of some rule for the exclusion


of measures of legislation proper from ap-


preparation bills is an official recommenda-
ton on a point hitherto extensively dis
cussed in the press and in Congress, and
will, we believe, be welcomed by the people
at large who have an interest in the simpli-
fication of public business, and, conse-
quently. in the radical separation of things
different in nature; while many men of con-
fused ideas in Congress, especially the
Southern democrats, will be apt to de-


nounce it as proposition to set aside ''one
OF the great guarantees of public liberty"
Rhetorical highfalutin of that kind was
relied upon to sustain the course of the
democrats in the extra session of Congress
and in the last regular session for refusing
to vote the appropriations unless they
could thereby coerce the minority or the
Executive into asserting to the passage
of measures deemed Objectionable by both.
No doubt many democrats who fol-
lowed their misunderstanding leaders on
those occasions sincerely believed that
in Withholding appropriations they were
really acting legitimately in the coercion
of an oppressive tyranny and were de-
Tending popular freedom. They fell into
this error through much study, perhaps
erroneous study, Of course-in fact, the
study of British constitutional history, not
American history. 1t is odd how many con-
fused ideas and quaint illusions are COM
habit of industrious men who want to be
thorough. ''going to the source of things
studying our constitution, that is to say,
not in itself and in our history, but in the
origin of its elements in British history
and never stopping to consider the wide
differences between our constitutional sys-
TEN and that of England. Popular rep
arch whose prerogative covers more
ground than the laws do, and state
without well defined system of taxation
these are the necessary elements of case
in which authority arbitrary and oppressive
is to be coerced in favor of liberty by the
power to grant or withhold money. Do
these elements exist here? They certainly
did exist in England when those ideas
arose on which the democrats have gone
astray. Kings at war, with empty treasures
and dreadfully in want of money, but hold
ing their thrones on the condition that they
would not raise s'forced loans," called upon
the representatives to come up and vote
them supplies" Representatives came
and voted supplies, generally on some con-
dition put in the bill-some condition that
enlarged the circle of liberties or guaran-
tesd those already held. But how did they
vote supplies? Was it by appropriation,
authorizing the expenditure of money in
the treasury? Not at all. If there had been
anything there His Majesty would not have
troubled his good people. They voted new
taxes, SO much in the pound on wool, barley,
beer or other products and commodities
They put new burdens on the people finan-
cially and bargained that they should thereby
be relieved from other burdens Of vassalage
that survived from older times. There are,
therefore, two essential differences between
an ancient case of that kind and the mod
ern case that the democrats compare to it.
There is the difference of the important
point of detail that Congress in refusing
to pass an appropriation bill does not with
hold the money of the people from official
hands. It is already out of the hands of
the people. and in the Treasury; Congress
merely votes that it shall remain there
that it shall not be paid out to men and
women who have actually earned it, or to
merchants who have given value for it. In
this our ignorant politicians utterly con-
founded one of the steps in process of
expenditure with the great power of taxing
the people. The other great blunder is in
the assumption that q people in the posses
sion of constitutional guarantee Of all
the liberties its own representatives deemed
it wise to accord is to be compared to one


bargaining for these very liberties bit by
bit with an arbitrary sovereign.