Year: 1879

The ground upon which the action of
the House of Representatives is defend
ed has been distinctly stated by many of
its advocates. A week before the close
of the last session of Congress the doc
trlne in question was stated by one of
| its ablest defenders as follows:


at is our duty to repeal this. 1t is
not worth while to attempt to repeal,
except upon an appropriation bill. A
Republican Senate would not agree to
nor Republican President sign the bill
for such repeal. Whatevever Objec-
ton to legislation upon the appropria-
ton bills may be made in ordinary
cases, does not apply where flee cleo
tions and the liberty of the citizen are
concerned. We have the power to vote
money. Let us annex conditions to it,
and insist upon redress of grievances. /"
By another distinguished member of
the House it was said: "The right of the
representatives of the people to with
hold supplies is as old as English liberty.
History records numrous instances
where the Commons, feeling that the
people were oppressed by laws that the
Lords would not consent to repeal by
the ordinary methods of legislation, OBJ
tained redress at last by refusing apprO-
priatiOns unless accompanied by relief
measures" The question of the gravest
magnitude, and new in this country. was
raised by this course of proceedings, and
fully recognized, also, by its defenders
in the Senate. 1t was said by distin-
guished Senator:


perhaps no greater question, in the
form we are brought to consider it. was
ever considered by the American Con-
gress in time of peace, for it involves
not merely the merits and demerits of
the laws which the House bill proposes
to repeal, but involves the rights, the
privileges, the powers. the duties Of the
two branches of Congress and of the
President Of the United States. It is a
question whose Importance can scarcely
De estimated. 1t is a question that nev-
er yet has been brought so sharply be-
fore the American Congress and Ameri-
can people, as it may be now. 1t is a
question which sooner or later must be
decided, and the decision must deter
mine what are the powers the House of
Representatives under the Constitution,
and what is the duty of that House in
view of the trainers of that Constitution
according to its letter and its spirit. Mr..
President, l should approach this ques-
ton, If were in the best possible eOndi-
ton to speak and to argue it, with very
grave diffidence, and certainly with the
utmost anxiety, for no one can think
over it as long and carefully as | have
thought of it, without seeing we are at
the beginning, perhaps, of struggle
that may last as long in this country as
similar struggle lasted in what we are
accustomed to call the MOtherland. The
struggle lasted for two centuries before
1T was ultimately decided. 1t is not
likely to last so long here, but it may
last until every man in this Chamber is
In his grave. 1t is the question whether
or no the House of Representatives has
a right to say, We will grant supplies
only upon condition that grievances are
redressed- We are representatives of
the taxpayers OF the republic. We, the
House Of Representatives, alone have
the right to originate money bills. We,
the House of Representatives, alone
have the right to originate bills which
grant the money of the people. The
Senate represents States; we represent
the taxpayers of the republi' We, there
fore, by the very terms of the COnstitu-
ton, are charged with the duty of orig
mating bills which grant the money of
the people. we claim the right which
the House of Commons in England es-
tablished, after two centuries of contest,
to say we will not grant the money of
the people unless there is a redress of
grievances


Upon the assembling of this Congress
IN pursuance of the call for an extra
session, which was made necessary by
the failure of the Forty-ifth Congress
to make needful appropriations for the
support OF the government, the question
was presented whether the attempt
made in the last Congress to engraft by
construction new principle upon the
Constitution shonld be persisted in or
not. This Congress has ample OppOrtu-
nifty and time to pass appropriation bills,
and also to enact any political measure
which may be determined upon in sepa-
rate bills, by the usual and orderly
method of proceedings


But majority of both houses deemed
it wise to adhere to the principle assert
ed and maintained in the last Congress
by majority of the House of Represent
atives. 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 ap-
propriatiOns upon which the existence of
the government may depend, unless the
Senate and President shall give their
assent to any legislation which the
House may see fit to attach to apprOpri-
alton bills. To establish this principle
is to make radical, dangerous, and un-
constitutional change in the character
of our institutions. The various de-
partments of the government, army and
navy, are established by the Constitu-
tion or by laws passed in pursuance there
of. Their duties are clearly defined,
and their support is carefully provided
for 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 appropriation bills
are passed. Whether the appropria-
tions are made or not, the collection of
taxes will go on. The public money
will accumulate in the Treasury. 1t
was not the intention Of the trainers of
Ine COnStltutlOn tnat any single branch
of the government should have the pow
er to dictate the conditions upon which
this treasure should be applied to the
purposes for which it was collected. Any
such Intention, if it had been entertain
ed, would have been plainly expressed
in the Constitution. That a majority of
the Senate now cOncurs in the claim of
the Houee adds to the gravity of the
situation, but does not alter the question
at issue. The newdoctrine, ifmaintain-
ed, will result in consolidation of un-
checked and despotic power in the House
of Representatives A bare majority of
the House will become the government.
The Executive will no longer be what
the trainers of the Constitution intend
ed-an equal and independent branch of
the government. 1t is clearly the con-
stitutional duty of the President to ex-
arcisa his discratinn and iudcnnant Il,nnr