Library Collections: Document: Full Text
 |
The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto
| |||||||||||||
Previous Page Next Page All Pages
|
Page 2: | |
| 11 | Mr. CHASE. The Senator from Virginia has anticipated what I was about to say. There has been no instance, I believe, in the history of the Government, in which the consideration of a bill returned by the President with his objections, has been postponed for any considerable period. In the instances which have fallen under my notice, the Senate, or the house to which the bill has been returned, has proceeded immediately to the consideration of the bill returned with the objection of the President. The Constitution seems to prescribe that course. It directs that the house to which the bill is returned shall proceed to the consideration of the bill, after the message has been received, and entered on the Journal. The message is considered by the usage of both Houses as spread upon the Journal whenever it is received; and hence, without delay, in a majority of instances, I believe, the House to which the bill has been returned, has proceeded at once to its consideration. | |
| 12 | There have been, I believe, however instances in which it has been proposed to assign a certain day for the consideration of the bill. It is not the message which is usually assigned for consideration, but the bill returned with the objections of the President. With the consent, therefore, of the Senator from California, I propose to submit a resolution that --- next be assigned for the consideration if the bill (giving its title) returned by the President with his objections. In submitting his resolution, I do not propose to indicate any opinion upon the merits of the bill. I voted for it. It has been returned by the President with his objections, and in my opinion it is the duty of the Senate, and of each Senator, to give a careful and thorough consideration to those objections, and afterwards to act as his own judgment dictates. | |
| 13 | Mr. BAYARD. I had intended to submit a resolution similar to that indicated by the honorable Senator from Ohio, and which, I think, is justified by both the practice of the Government and the inference which may be drawn from the language of the Constitution. Yesterday, when this question came before the Senate, after the reading of the message, the first motion made was, that it be ordered to lie on the table and be printed. That was agreed to. The motion was then made by the honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr. HUNTER) to print ten thousand extra copies. On that motion a debate arose that went into the merits of the message, and had scarcely the slightest connection with the consideration of the propriety of making the order to print an extra number of copies of a public document of high importance, emanating from the Executive of the United States, and intended for the information of the people of the country, as well as of the Senate of the United States. | |
| 14 | I had intended, under the practice of the Government, and it seems to me in accordance with the direction of the Constitution, to submit a motion similar to that of the honorable Senator from Ohio, assigning Monday next for the reconsideration of this bill, giving its title in the resolution, to which the President has returned to the Senate his objections. The language of the Constitution requires, that when the President does object to a bill, he shall specify his objections, and return it to the body in which it originated, which shall proceed to consider the same; and, in regard to the practice of Congress under that provision, I will give two instances, taken at different periods, to show what the course has been. | |
| 15 | The first veto message was that of General Washington in 1792, and on that occasion, immediately after the reading of the message, the order was entered: | |
| 16 | "Resolved, That tomorrow be assigned for the consideration of the bill to which the objections apply." | |
| 17 | In 1832, when the veto message of General Jackson came in, as to the bank bill, on the motion of Mr. Webster, the following day -- "to-morrow" -- was assigned for the consideration of the bill which the President had sent in, with his objections. That has been the usual course, I believe, with, perhaps, a single exception. I believe there is one solitary exception, in which the consideration of the objections made by the President of the United States to the bill, was postponed further than the following day. | |
| 18 | It seems to me, as tomorrow is private-bill day, that there will be no impropriety in assigning Monday next for the consideration of this bill; but that there ought to be an early day fixed, appears from the very character of the business. The act has been passed by both Houses of Congress. It stands in such a condition that it cannot become a law unless two thirds of both houses, after hearing the President's objections, agree to its passage. The language of the Constitution seems to require that the message should be considered, and disposed of before going into other legislation, and at as early a day as practicable. I therefore hope, in accordance with the previous practice of Congress, in times quite as exciting as regards political questions as the present, when, no matter how the majority stood, they always proceeded on the succeeding day to the consideration of the subject-matter on which the President presented himself as differing from the two houses of Congress on cardinal questions connected with the construction of the Federal Constitution, that we will pursue that course now, because the questions involved in this message are questions of principle. | |
