The Charlotte Journal

OPINION OF JOHN RANDOLPH.—In 1805, in the debate on the impeachment of Judge Chase, John Randolph of Roanoke, delivered the following remarkable argument:

"The President of the United States is vested with the power of returning to Congress all bills which shall have passed both Houses, with his objections; and this qualified negative, like all other discretionary suggestions, would it not be an abuse of a power in the President to suppose he should use this power in all ordinary occasions, and under a high responsibility, entrusted to him to be exercised only on extraordinary occasions? And would render him liable to an impeachment.

If the President has the power of keeping in his possession all laws which are presented to him for his signature for ten days. Suppose at a session which terminates on the 4th of March, and at which the greater part of the laws are passed within the last ten days of the session, he should return the laws to Congress on the 3rd of March, within twenty minutes of its dissolution, with his objections to each of them? Two-thirds must be called on each question in order to pass them. What would be the consequence? The Yeas and Nays would show a majority, and before they could be taken, the House would be dissolved, and the country left one year without the necessary laws. The House of Representatives must be dissolved, and the Senate would not be in session.

At this was one of the most gross abuses of power, there a man in existence who would not declare that an officer could be guilty of?"

The case stated by Mr. Randolph is a forcible one, and we question whether any of the great men of that day held a different opinion from him of the enormous abuse of power in the case supposed. Had "old Roanoak" survived to the present day, he would have outlived the true spirit of the constitution and witnessed that an officer should be guilty of much grosser abuse.—Natl. Register.