Daily Los Angeles Herald

The
Army Bill Veto.

The veto of the army bill by Mr.
Hayes is pronounced, by the great
majority of our Republican cotem-
poraries, a master stroke of states-
manship.
They chuckle over it
and congratulate each other on the
defeat that Democratic machina-
tions have sustained at the hands
of this, just now, brave and patri-
otic, President.
"If Congress does not make the
necessary
appropriations," they
say, "the wheels of government
must stop, and the Democratic
members and Senators will stand
convicted at the bar of public opin-
ion of having stopped them."
The public are solemnly assured
that the action of Congress in mak
ing its appropriation contingent
upon the repeal of an obnoxious old
law or the passage of a desirable
new one is unjust, unprecedented
and revolutionary, and only when
completely overborne by a weight
of proof and innumerable instances
both in this country and in Eng-
land will they admit that there
ever has existed any precedent
for it.
When forced to admit that the
action of Congress is not an entire-
ly "original sin," they tell us that
it is none the less wrong and
should be stopped, and into this
phase of the question we propose
now to enquire.
From time immemorial the con.
trol of the British purse has been
lodged in the House of Commons,
and all appropriations must origi-
nate in that body, and in this we
in America have followed the ex-
ample of the mother country. Now
why was this power lodged in the
hands of the popular branch of the
Legislature, and why has it always
been kept there? Why did the
British people never give the Sov.
ereign this power? Were the Com-
mons not
as likely to abuse it as
Congress?
Why did the framers
of our Constitution follow the ex-
ample of England in this particu-
lar if they didn't think that that
branch of the National Legislature
directly representing the people
was the
proper custodian of
the people's money? Has not
this power of withholding supplies
which is vested, as nearly as possi-
ble, in the people themselves, been
ever looked upon as the proper
weapon for restraining the en-
croachments of the Executive
upon the liberties of the people?
These are questions which we sub-
mit to the calm and sober judg-
ment of all who take an intelligent
and enlightened interest in Ameri.
can politics.
Mr. Carlyle, member of Congress
from Kentucky, in a recent speech,
took some pains to show how fre-
quently the Republican party,
when in power in Congress, had
hinged contingent legislation upon
appropriation bills, especially dur-
ing the administration of Mr.
Johnson.
Did Mr. Johnson ever
veto one of these bills?
What
would have been the consequences
if he had? Does anyone doubt
that he would have been denounced
from Maine to California and from
the lakes to the gulf as the greatest
enemy of his country that ever dis.
graced human nature? Would his
enemies have stopped with im-
peaching him, or would they not
have clamored for his life?
The simple truth of the matter
is that Congress in placing what
are called "riders" upon the late
appropriation bill, exercised only
the power vested in it by the fram-
ers of the Constitution, and for the
very purpose they intended.