7
proper. They violate no law in granting supplies; they violate no law in withholding them. They must exercise their discretion in all cases. They have the same power, the same Constitutional right, to withhold from the Executive twenty millions of dollars for prosecuting the Mexican war, that they would have to withhold the like sum for extending the Cumberland road, or for carrying out Whitney's project of a railroad to the Pacific. If we must obey the President in his military demands, why not in his civil? He has the same power over the raising of a revenue, that he has over the mode of spending it; and if we must grant ten, fifty, or a hundred thousand men, because the President desires it, we must lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce, establish post roads, and do all other things that can lawfully be done, for the same reason. We must make and unmake Tariffs, pass or repeal Subtreasuries, allow or reject the private claims of our citizens, just as it may please our lord and master. And, Mr. Chairman, has it come to this, that all the powers of this Government are centred in one man? Are the people to be insulted in this manner? Are they graciously allowed to play the farce of choosing their own Representatives, and sending them here simply to register Executive edicts? Is this body to be shorn of all its prerogatives and powers? Must we do the bidding of James K. Polk in all things? Is he to dictate to us the policy we must adopt in relation to the all-absorbing question of the Mexican war?
"Before his pride must his superiors fall,
His word the law, and he the lord of all?"
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is the doctrine which has been unblushingly proclaimed on this floor. The gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Wick,) told us the other day, that, when he could not go with the Democratic party, and do the bidding of the Executive, he should feel it his duty to resign, and let his constituents send a member here who would. This avowal was so gross, that I believe no one has as yet openly endorsed it. But if we analyze this matter, it will be found to be nothing more nor less than the doctrine advanced here, that we have no power or right to withhold supplies, but must grant whatever the President may please to ask. But I will not dwell longer upon this despotic doctrine. It is totally unworthy of a free Government. It would not be tolerated in the limited monarchies of Europe for a single moment. Let the Ministry advance this doctrine of passive obedience in the French Chambers, or the English Parliament, and it would produce a storm which all their influence could not control. And why should this despotic doctrine be tolerated here, in this land of civil liberty? The right of withholding supplies is an essential ingredient in a free Government. It is a popular right—the people's best security. Upon them must fall all the burdens of the war; and their voice should be heard in relation to its prosecution. This doctrine lies at the foundation of our institutions. It is sacred to all freemen, and formidable to tyrants only.
I have endeavored, Mr. Chairman, and I think, successfully, to show that Congress has the Constitutional right to withhold supplies from the Administration in time of war. I admit that withholding supplies is rather an extreme measure. It is like the veto power of the President a power never designed for ordinary exercise. I am no advocate for lawless opposition to any Administration. I would justify no factious act. The question before us is, whether, on a full view of the whole ground, the present case will justify the exercise of this lawful prerogative. Every one who has paid any attention to the progress of our institutions, must have witnessed the constant increase of Executive prerogative and power. The veto power has
