effort was made by officers or men to prevent the murder, and the report was that General Kitchener had given orders to kill all wounded.

This is from an English correspondent, who relates whate he saw with his own eyes:

No attempt was made for two days to do anything for the wounded dervishes.

Except to murder and rob them.

General Kitchener returned from these terrible scenes with the blood of thousands of murdered men, women, and children on his hands, and urged Christian England to forget his barbarity and subscribe a fund to build a college at Khartoum to teach Christianity and English civilization. I can imagine the children, whose fathers and mothers had been thus barbarously murdered, flocking in numbers to become students of a civilization and a religion that had deprived them of their parents and the justification for all this was that their purpose was to benefit and bless mankind.

Hear the canting Salisbury, at a dinner of the Constitutional Club, London, December 16, 1898. Referring to the Soudan compaign, he said:

The Empire is advancing and must advance. The great strength you have must be used unfalteringly, unsparingly, but still prudently, for the advancement of the interests of the Empire and for the benefit of mankind. That we have used the force intrusted to us not violently, not sentimentally, but with calm and courageous calculation for the advancement of the interests of the Empire and the benefits of the civilization of mankind.

The cargo of an English ship starting to the Tropics on a mission of civilization and Christian mercy is made up of an assortment of merchandise, among which may be found rum and opium, with the Queen's stamp upon them. There are Bibles, English harlots, and the missionary to go before and open the way for the introduction of the rest of the cargo, until a colony is built up like Singapore and Hongkong. No wonder, with these experiences fresh in their minds, that the Asiatics do not embrace Christianity.

་

E

Our imperialistic friends and the President favor taking tropical colonies and holding them, after the English model, on the plea of duty to mankind, and the President employs fine passages of hypocritical cant borrowed from England's long experience. We are told we should join England in her work and help bear the white man's burden. We are told that now is the moment when the destiny of Anglo-Saxon civilization hangs in the balance, and we must take up the burden and spread civilization and enlightenment and Christianity, after the English fashion, over that portion of the world not yet cursed by the blight of English presence; that England has been doing the work for a century, and now she falters and finds the burden too great to bear. Jealous rivals covet her empire and her dominions; that the great prize at stake for mankind is Anglo-Saxon dominion and lordship over the world; that dominion after the English fashion it is our duty. to uphold; that it is God's work, and that He desires we should make England's struggle our own. And so imbued has the President become with this idea that he has pursued a course that has led the whole world to believe he has made at least a verbal alliance with Great Britain to render aid, if occasion requires. The effect of our attitude has been to prevent the nations of Europe from helping the South African Republics.

Therefore our duty is plain. We should pass this resolution of sympathy with these struggling Republics. We should show the world that England can not rely upon us for support in any form. We should encourage and counsel with her enemies. We should show to the whole world that we condemn her course in South Africa.

I spurn an English alliance and English sympathy. I want nothing to do with that nation of robbers and murderers, unless it be to join the other nations of the earth in a notice to England that she must close her career of piracy, must pull down her black flag, and withdraw her armed forces from all her colonies and allow them to be free. Rather than join in this unholy work, called by that poet of blood "the white man's burden," let us emulate the example of our forefathers and be again the champions of all men struggling to be free, the

example to the world, the proof to mankind that a nation of freemen can do right, can be just, can resist the temptation to conquer and oppress, and that we hate injustice. Let us exhibit the example of a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and demonstrate that this Government, so conceived and so dedicated, a government of, for, and by the people, shall not perish from the earth.

APPENDIX IV

M

THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO

R. PRESIDENT,1 if I were opposed to the river and harbor bill I should yet feel bound to vote against sustaining the President's veto, because I believe it is based upon wrong principles and a violation of the Constitution.

I believe the time has come when Congress should propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting the veto of the President to those rightful subjects contemplated by the Constitution itself, or by proposing an amendment to annul a veto by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. The veto is a relic of despotism, and was incorporated into the European constitutions to protect the monarch's prerogative from legislative encroachment, and was never intended to serve any other purpose; and therefore has no place in a free government based on the fundamental principle that the will of the majority is supreme.

I am of the opinion that the Constitution as it now stands does not confer any power upon the President to defeat with the veto the will of the majority of Congress when properly expressed upon any rightful subject of legislation. The President has no legislative discretion conferred upon him by the Constitution, for if he has, then legislative responsibility is also imposed. If the President has legislative discretion and responsibility, he has no right to sign any bill without that care and attention, investigation, and knowledge which are exercised by and incumbent upon the two Houses of Congress—a duty which it would be physically impossible for him to perform. If it is urged that the President has the right and that it is 1. Speech in the Senate June 3, 1896.

his prerogative to veto any bill Congress may pass, a usurping President, having secured one vote over one-third of one House of Congress, could veto all measures, and representative government would be at an end and the Constitution overturned. As well might it be argued that the two Houses of Congress have a right under the Constitution to refuse to pass any act appropriating money for the courts or the Department of Justice or the Army, thus making it impossible for the decree of the court to be enforced, and so destroy a coördinate branch of the Government created by the Constitution. The power exists in Congress to do so, but to exercise it would be unconstitutional and destructive of the Constitution itself. So if the President shall undertake to exercise legislative discretion in the use of the veto. The power may exist, but the Constitution would be violated and the will of the majority defeated. Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution provides that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

The framers of the Constitution only intended to confer the veto power upon the President for the purpose of protecting the executive office from encroachment by the legislative power, or to protect the Constitution. Any other use of the veto is unconstitutional and should be resisted.

Senator Davis, of Minnesota, for the majority of the Senate Committee on Pensions, on April 28, 1888, in a report to the Senate on some recent vetoes, took this view of the matter, as will be seen from the following extracts from this report:

The right to so use the power of executive disapproval as to change the ordinary methods of legislative action by a majority vote upon proper subjects of legislation, merely because the Executive differs from Congress upon the sufficiency of proof or the expediency of relief, does not, in the opinion of your committee, exist. Such a misconception of the extent of executive power, making it limitless, is fraught with dangers to the independence and to the constitutional powers of Congress, and it clearly implies that a factious or usurping President, who proposes to subordinate to his will that department to which the Constitution has confided the principal powers of Government, can right