Library Collections: Document: Full Text
 |
The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto
| |||||||||||||
Previous Page Next Page All Pages
|
||
| 29 | Mr. BADGER. I believe the actual question before the Senate, is on the motion made by the Senator from California, to postpone the further consideration of this bill until Monday week. | |
| 30 | The PRESIDENT. That is the question. | |
| 31 | Mr. BADGER. If I understand the rules of the Senate, the resolution submitted by the Senator from Ohio, is not now before the body. It is but an intimation of what he will propose, if the motion of the Senator from California shall be voted down. That is the state of the question before the Senate. | |
| 32 | Now, Mr. President, I do not understand that there is anything in the clause of the Constitution directing the body to whom the President may return a bill, with his objections, as to the time when the reconsideration of the bill is to be made. The provision of the Constitution is simply designed to direct what is to be done upon the disapproval by the President of a bill which passes the two Houses, and under what circumstances it may become a law, notwithstanding his objections. The language is -- after stating that the President shall return the bill with his objections, to the House in which it shall have originated -- | |
| 33 | "Who shall enter the objection at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall agree to the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which, it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law.'' | |
| 34 | There is nothing that intimates that it was the will of the framers of the Constitution that the Senate or the House of Representatives, receiving the objections, should then proceed to reconsider; but that, if this President disapproved the bill, it should be reconsidered by both Houses, and if passed by two thirds, become a law; and the Constitution directs that, in all such cases, the votes shall be taken by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill recorded on the Journal. It is nothing in the world but a reconsideration of this bill -- a reconsideration directed by the Constitution. The time when we are to reconsider it is just as much at our control as the time was when we should consider the bill heretofore. We are to consider all the circumstances which are involved in the inquiry, when shall this reconsideration take place? We are neither unreasonably to delay, nor improperly to precipitate it. We must consider the question with a view to the state of our business, the period of the session, and the necessity for a full and thorough examination of the grounds taken by the President in his message, and the grounds on which the bill may be entitled to support. | |
| 35 | I find that, although it has been usual, and although there is more propriety in proceeding at once to the consideration of such a message, in 1841, when Mr. Tyler sent to this body a veto message on the bank bill, which was passed by the Congress of that year, the message was received on Monday, August 16. It was ordered to be printed, and its consideration appointed for Tuesday, the next day, at twelve o'clock. On that day the Senate proceeded to consider the bill for distribution and preemption. It was considered and debated until twelve o'clock, when the bank bill, which had been vetoed, was taken up, and, on motion, its further consideration was postponed until Wednesday -- the next day. The land bill was then resumed, debated, considered, and amended. On Wednesday, the bank bill was further postponed to Thursday, and the land bill was taken up, further considered, debated, and ordered to lie on the table; and on Thursday, after other business had been disposed of by the Senate, they resumed the consideration of the bill and message accompanying it, and finally disposed of it. It was agreed, on all hands then, that there should be no unreasonable delay; the subject was considered; but it was agreed, also, that there was no necessity for immediate consideration. That being so, the Senate has the same reasonable discretion on this subject as over the propriety of considering any bill originally. Why should they not? It is merely sent back, and the Senate must reconsider it, and pass upon it in the constitutional method. But what restrains them from selecting what they think the best and most expedient time? I see nothing in the Constitution; and with regard to the past practice of the Government, you must recollect, Mr. President, that this message of President Tyler was received on the 16th of August. The session was then nearly drawing to a close. There was a propriety, and I may say a sort of necessity, in disposing of that message under the circumstances, in less time than is required, or would be necessary or proper, in regard to this message. We are now in the early part of May. We have the whole session before us. Having said this, I wish to add that it makes no difference to me whether this message is postponed to next Monday or Monday week. Whatever may suit the convenience of other gentlemen on that subject, will suit mine too. I rose to make these remarks simply because I do not conceive there is anything stringent, directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, in the Constitution as to the time when the reconsideration should take place. | |