Year: 1874

From The Inter-Ocean.


President Grant anA the salary Act.


There Is q, deal Of meanness in
theC pgrsistent attempts made TO
cast upon President Grant the obi
um which the popular Judgment
has pronounced against the act of
March last, whereby the salaries Of
members Of Congress and Of certain
officers of the government were in
creased. For whatever wrong was
embraced in that act, Congress,
and not the President, is responsi-
bic. + is peculiarly the duty Of
the Legislative department of the
government to fix the salaries of all
public officers; and in matter so,
entirely secondary when compared
with the duties of such officers, it
would be- to say the least, indeli I
cate for the, President to interpose
the Executive veto. The plague of
vetoes was upon the Republican
party during the term of President
johnson, and for no one thing
was he more denounced than his.
constant resort to that power. in
q majority of instances his vetoes
were used concerning measures
which involved great questions OF
state; and, therefore, however obsti-
nately wrong the majority in Con
gress may have regarded him, he
had that plea in justification of his
course. The salary act contained
no such reasons of state, calling for
an exercise of the Executive veto
by President Grant. On the con-
trary, all of the reasons of state
forbade its exercise. The provis-
ions whereby an increase of salaries
was effected were imposed upon
one of the most important of all of
the appropriation bills. The bill
passed in the last hours of the last
session Of a Congress. Its appro-
val was necessary to prevent en-
barrassments to the government.
This alone was highly important
consideration, and sufficient to
command a withholding of the Ex-
ecutive disapproval. True. a defeat
of the measure might have been
cured by calling the new Congress
together in extra session, but such
a resort would not commend itself
to any considerate mind. Sessions
of Congress are expensive, and, to
a greater or less degree, trouble
some, vexatious, and disturbing to
the general business interests of
the country. We must have them
once year, but no thoughtful man
would desire moro than this.


The veto power is one which
should be rarely used. It is vest
ed in the Grown in England, but it
has been used only once since the
year 1892, the exception being its
exercise by Queen Anne in 1907.
The Commons of England would
not permit its frequent use, and it
is doubtful if they would allow il
at ALL While they could not pro
ceed against the Grown on account
of o veto of an act of Parliament
they would doubtless drive O Min
istry from power for advising it
The people of our own country
were at one time nearly equally
divided relative to the propriety O
the use of the veto-the Wing part,
opposing it bitterly. Opposition
to the veto power was one of tn.
elements that entered into the can
vass of 1849, which resulted in th,
election of General Taylor to th,
Presidency.


The trainers of our Constitution
never designed the veto power TO,
whimsical and indiscriminate use
Mr.. Justice Story, in his Commen
taries on the Constitution, gives
the reasons for the presence of tn,
veto power in that instrument, il
these words:


In the first place, there is q nat
ural tendency in the Legislative de
partment to intrude upon the right
and to absorb the powers of Tia
other departments of government
y If the executive did no
possess this qualified negative, j
might gradually be stripped of al
it's authority, and become, what
. is well known the Governors o
some States are, a mere pagean
and shadow of magistraey. In tn
next place, establishe
a salutary check upon the legisla
tive body, calculated to preserv
the community against the effect
of faction, precipitancy, unconstitr
tional Legislation, and temporar
exiteinents, as well as political no.
tility.


None of these reasons apply
the salary act. No one pretend
that it was unconstitutional. Will
the fact that it was discussed NOR
or less during the entire Congress
in which it was passed negative
the idea of precipitancy It wa
not the result of faction nor Of ten
porary excitement We admit this
the measure ought not to have bee


enacted by Congress; but this


no sufficient reason for a Presiden


ial veto. The peoples direct rel


resentatives did the work, and it


for them to undo it. If the Pres


dent had vetoed the measure, doub


less he would have been charge


with having been influenced thel e'


by the Union Pacific Railway Con


pany and the Credit Mobilier
| A,nor;oo e.. Al, LII ,r,1,:oL :r...