Year: 1879

sentatives in the last congress was il
favor of the section to this bill. L


was known that majority of the sen
ate was opposed to it, and that as I
separate measure 1t could not be adopt
ed. 1t was attached to the army ap
preparation bill to compel the senate tc
assent to it. 1t was plainly announced
to the senate that the army appropria
tion bill would not be allowed to pas
unless the proposed amendments Of the
election laws were adopted with it.
The senate refused to assent to the bill
on account of this irrelevant section
Congress thereupon adjourned with
out passing the appropriation bill fol
the army, and the present extra session
Of the Forty-sixth congress became ne
/ cessary to furnish the means to carry
on the government. The ground upon
which the action of the house of repre-
sentatives is defended has been distinct
ly stated by many of its advocates. A
week before the close of the last session
of congress, the. doctrine in question
was stated by one Of its ablest defend
ers as follows: SIT is our duty to repeal
these. 1t is not worth while to attempt
the repeal except upon the appropria-
tion bill. The republican senate would
not agreee to, nor the republican presi-
dent sign the bill for such repeal.
Whatever objection to the legislation
upon the appropriation bills may be
made in the ordinary case, does not ap-
ply where free elections and the liberty
Of the citizens are concerned. We
have power to vote money. Let us an
mex these conditions to it, and insist
upon a redress of the grievance


BY another distinguished member of
the house it was said: "The right of
representatives of the people to with
hold the supplies is as old as English
liberty. History records numerous in
stances where the house of commons,
feeling that the people were oppressed
by laws that the lords would not con-
sent to repeal, by ordinary methods of
legislation, obtained redress at last by
refusing appropriations unless accom-
panied by relief measures That
question, of the gravest magnitude,
and new in this country, was raised by
this course of proceeding, and was full
ly recognized by its defenders in the
United States senate.


1t was said by distinguished senator.
ssPerhaps no greater question, in the
form we brought to consider it, was
ever considered by an American con-
gress in time Of peace, for it involves
not only the merits and demerits of the
laws which the house bill proposes to
repeal, but involves the rights, the
privileges, the powers and the duties of
the two branches of congress and of
the president of the United States"


But the majority of both houses have
deemed it wise to adhere to the princi-
pie asserted and maintained in the last
congress by majority of the house of
representatives. That principle is that
the house of representatives has the
sole right to originate bills for raising
revenue, and therefore has the right to
withhold appropriations upon which
the existence of the government may
depend, unless the senate and president
should give their assent to any legisla-
tion which the house may see fit to
attach to appropriation bills. To es-
tablish this principle is to make radi-
cal. dangerous and unconstitutional
change in the character of our instltu-
tions. The various departments of the
government and army and navy are
established by the constitution, or by
laws passed In pursuance thereof
Their duties are clearly defined and
their support is carefully provided fol
by law. The money required for this
purpose has been collected from the
people and is now in the treasury ready
to be paid out as soon as the appropria
tion bills are passed. Whether the ap
preparations are made or not the collec
ton of taxes will 90 on. The public
money will accumulate in the treasury
1t was not the intention of the trainers
of the constitution that any single
branch of the government should have
the power to dictate conditions upor
which this treasure should be applieC