Year: 1879

+ So


Army appropriation Bill


1t is charged, sir, not that TIL
! amendment under consideration il


Wolves of itself an uncunsiitution,


piece of legislation, but it is urge


by various distinguished member


ON this floor that it is revolutionary


in its character; that it has n


proper place on an appropriate


bill; that it is out of line, and de


serves the condemnation of tn


House because it is an exotic in thi


connection, and should have bee


considered as an independent bill


It is charged that the tendency an,


operation of it will be to restrict tn


power of the President as Com


mander-in-Chief of the Army of tn


United States.


Now, Mr.. Chairman, he is but


poor student of this country's his


tory who is not able to satisfy him


self that from the very formation O


the Federal Constitution down ii


the present time it has ever beer


held, and that by the highest author


titles of the land, and never success


fully denied, that it was a power


not only of the American Congress


but a power of this House to control
the employment of the army by a


Withholding OF supplies.


The debates upon the formation
of the Federal Constitution which
lie before me show that the bright
est intellects assembled in that con-
vention asserted this doctrine in its
broadest term, and no man dare
gainsay it. 1t is one of those fea-
lures of English liberty that have
come down to us by adoption.


1t was so stated in the debates
upon the formation of this instru-
ment, as given to US, that it is ever
and always in the power of the
House of Representatives, by copy
ing the example of the House of
Commons of England in withhold
ing supplies, to control absolutely
the employment and conduct of the
army. You may follow that theory
down at short intervals, and in 1919,
when an army appropriation bill
was considered and passed in this
and it was proposed to
restrict the power of the President
by specifying the purposes to which
the appropriations should be APP
piled, the very same argument was
made against it then that our friends
upon the other side hurl against us
now.


1t was upon that occasion that
Mr.. Mercer, one of the brightest
among lawmakers of the Govern
ment of his day, asserted upon this
floor, without encountering contra
diction, that it was in the power of
the House of Representatives to
supplies altogether for the
of the army if, indeed,
that should become necessary to
control its operation. 1t was then
that one whose patriotism has never
yet been questioned, though it. has
through the greater por-
ton of a fading century only to
grow brighter as the ages go by-it
vas then that not only Kentucky's
out Americas great commoner, Mr..
Clay, declared in his burning words
Of eloquence, uttered where we now
lit, that he was ready to


Make THE ISSUE WITH THE EXEC


UTIvE
md offer him a bill with the objec-
ionable features incorporated in it,
md to say to the Executive: "Sign
II refuse to sign it; but if you do
'efuse to sign it, declaring that we
ave not the power to pass 1t, then |
ny answer to you shall be, neither |
las the Executive the power that
7ou arrOgate to yourSelf.o And |
rou may come down from then till |
low, and never in the history of |
his Government has it been denied
hat the Constitution itself, which |
,ives to Congress the right to pass
hese money bills to provide means
or the support and maintenance of
military establishment, carries
With it the resultant right on the
,art of Congress to withhold those
when in its judgment
t IS necessary to prevent abuse in
he employment Of the military.


In the very nature of things this
amendment of the law
annot be revolutionary. 1t is
epealing statute; its enly purpose
nd object is to repeal an existing
aw. / will not now pause to tell
Iow or under what circumstances it
vas passed / viii not now pause to
elineate the motives which, in a
reat measure, because of the prev
Ience of natural passions, inspired,
f they did not excuse, the passage
f this law. But in the very nature
( things the amendment cannot be
evolutionary, Negative legislation
never revolutionary. This is not
legislation, twist the
sue as the gentleman from New
ersey (Mr. Robeson) may seek to
o. Buckle, the most phllosOphic
f all historians, either ancient or
lodern, has told us that the states
IAN and the lawmaker seldom, if
yer, render a benefit to mankind
v the enactment of Affirmative
Tvs: that it is rather by repeating
f obnoxious and vicious enact
lents that they entitle themselves
J the gratitude of humanity.


AS I have said, this measure is in
s very nature anything but revo.
ltionary. Will it be claimed-is
lere a gentleman upon that side of
his chamber who will undertake
} claim-that by any reason of any
rovisions of the Federal COnstitu-
on the President now holds the
over of which this amendment
roposes to deprive him? Is there
man left in this House on either
de who, after the clear and logical
resentation of the issue made few
avs since by my colleague from
Lentucky Mr. Carlisle), will under
Ike to assert that there was any
Ich power on the part of the Exec
tive prior to the act OF Congress OF
795?


Sir, if the utmost be granted, if it
e admitted instead of being denied,
) we deny it, that this power was
held by the President, it
,as held by reason of Congress
onal statute, and of necessity the
passing that statute and
that power must be
.othed with equal authority to re-
cal 1t.
The Constitution does not give to
ne President the right to send the
rmed forces of this Government
ito any State, even to suppress do
lestic violence; by no means. 1t
ives the right to the President OF
is own motion it goes farther, and
squires him to protect each State
ON invasion, by the employment
the military power. But it only
Onfers upon him the authority to


SEND THE ARMED SOLDIERS
g 4t. r,,,,ou,,,,,o,,+ TITO c,to4o 70