|
|
|
now have followed civil rights bills, and freedmen's bureau
bills and reconstruction bills.
Messrs. Marbury and Jones spoke in favor of the sec-
tion as reported by the committee.
Mr. Brown addressed the Convention in favor of the
substitute.
Mr. Hayden opposed conferring the veto power on the
Governor.
Mr. Rider advocated his substitute.
Mr. Groome argued that the section should be inserted
in the legislative department.
Mr. Motter spoke in favor of and Mr. Syester against
the veto power.
Mr. Stoddert said that the gentleman from Kent (Mr.
Wickes) had stated that in the Convention of 1789 the
veto principle had given rise to considerable discussion,
but the gentleman was mistaken; there was no difference.
That Convention had assigned as a reason for granting
the veto power the bad laws that had been passed by the
thirteen States. Everything since that time proved the
wisdom and prudence of their action. The people have
always sustained the Presidents in the exercise of this
power. In the nineteen States where the veto power ex-
isted, there had never been a voice against it, and the ex-
perience of those States should be our example. The
legislative branch at Washington had swallowed up all the
power of the other branches.
He cared only for the protection of the people. The
day might come when such assemblages as that lately
held at Baltimore would obtain temporary control of the
Legislature, and the veto power in the hands of an up-
right Governor might then save to us the little dignity
we had left, and serve to protect the people. If the Gov-
ernor vetoed a good law, it would go back to the great
tribunal of public opinion. The veto power could not in-
vade any other department of the government. No man
would have the hardihood to face public opinion without
he knew he was right. One man can be controlled by a
sense of responsibility if he is a man of honor. But how
different it is when this responsibility is divided among a
189
|
|
|
|
 |
