Year: 1866

VETO OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.


The President has seen fit in the exercise
Of his nndoubted constitutional power, again
to interpose the Executive veto against bill
passed BY both houses of Congress. It is to
be regretted that there is difference OF
opinion between Congress and the President,
sufficiently wide and important to lead to the
interposition of the Exc cutive fiat against the
deliberate action of the legislative department
of the government. Ifthe frequent exercise
of this power be necessary and proper to con.
troll and nullify the most important measures
of Congress then may not the advocates of
despotism find show of reason gathered
from our Republican example for repudiatinga a
legislative body as nuisance; and may not
therefrom the sentiment in the old world, as
in the new, against free government, receive
additional encouragement and strength? If on
the other hand, this frequent resort to the
high prerogatives of the one man power
thwart legislation and reduce the legislative
department Of the government to the position
of the mere subseryent registrar of Executive
policy in matters peculiarly within the sphere
of legislative power, then the friends of free
government have equal cause to deplore the
course of the President in the premises. Bnt,
however Objectionable the veto power appears
to US, we do not forget that the fathers of the
republic placed it in the constitution as
quality of Executive prerogative, and that
hence, its exercise is legitimate By the Presi-
dent.


So far as the President may differ from
Congress in regard to the constitutionalitv of
bills presented for his signature, he has no
alternative, but must declare his objections.
But as 10 matters Of expediency and policy,
the legislative body is entitled to some defer
ence at the hands of the President and their
combined wisdom when so nearly unanimous
ought TO be equal to that OF one man whose
mind is more or less absorbed by th. impor-
tant duties more peculiarly within his own
executive department.


The Civil Rights Bill was regarded by Con-
gress as essential to protect large class of
people peculiarly dependent, and in the midst
Of a superior race lately in armed rebellion
against the Government, and very naturally
more or less hostile to this loyal class of
people just wrenched by the power of the
Government from oppressive bondage The
purpose of the bill was to prot ect them in the
practical exercise of the liberty which the
Government had pledged itself to maintain.
These people were lately in the condition of
dogs-owned, cared for and protected by
their masters. Their liberation bv the Fed
eral authority, bereit Of its protection, leaves
them in the condition of stray dogs when hy.
drophobis prevails in . community. They
have no rights which white. men are bound
to respect, while exposed to public prejudice
and general contempt, with none interested
to protect them, and no means of self pro-
lection.


The bill secured them some such rights
some of the ordinary civil personal rights
which these long oppressed, much injured
and unfortunate people enjoy in Iowa, and
provided the means for the enforcement of
these rights. The bill adopted the machinery
and to certain extent the modes Of proceed
ing lesortea to under the fugitive slave law,
toseturn them TO slavery under the old regime,
to maintain their liberty under the new. But
we are now told that laws, entirely constitu-
tianal in their principle and manner of exc
cutlun in the interests of slavery are utterly
Unconstitutional and subversive Of free gov
ernment, when applied in behalf Of personal
liberty and the rights Of freemen.


But the bill was not confined in its opera
ton or benefits to the black man. 1t ex-
tended also for the protection of the rights
and liberties of white men. And all who ere
familiar with the intense prejudice and hatred
against Germans and Yankees and Metho.
dists and Radicals, and how frequently eml.
grants from the North are exposed to violence
and injustice in the South, cannot doubt eithe,
the necessity or the beneficial effects of such
q law. But the President opposes the bill al
unconstitutional and inexpedient: On the
former ground. surely the opinion of the many
able lawyers in Congress, who voted for the
billi entitled to much weightin the considera
ton of its legality. Neve ertheless, it will be
remembered that a radical Republican, SC
noted, as lawyer of high abilities and for hi
uniform devotion to republican principles as
Mr.. Bingham, OF Ohio, opposed the bill on
The ground Of its unconstitutionality. The
arguments Of the President based on the in
expedieney Of the bill are not such as from his
uniform declarations for the protection Eth
freedmen, we had anticipated. We regre
their expression, and deny their force.


Itisa pity, that in maturing their recon
strnction measures Congress. can not dives
them Of all unconstitutional features. Ih,
people do not want unconstitutional legisla
ton, for constitutional law is the conser vato
of popular liberty. They do demand, how
ever, that loyalty be confirmed that freedom
be established that the rights Of freedmen
be asserted and maintained and that tn,
peace and unity of the country be fxed on al
enduring basis. Toithis end the Union part.
demands of its Congress and its Presiden
that they labor faithfully together in the spiri


ofiberty, doing justice to all our people


freemen or freedmen. =


STERLING PRIcE is engaged in writing let


ters isom Mexico, commenting that countr,


IN winch he has cast his fortunes, to the favo


OF his fellow traitors. He talks complacentl,


and enthusiastically Of the Emperor and EN-


press, and has laid out village on his plant.


alton and named it after sour rood E,nrr.o.