The Presidential Veto - 1869 - 1880 — Parks, Presidents and Parks

Presidential vetoes increased significantly in the post-Civil War era. The reason? Private Bills, or laws that relate to a single individual. After the Civil War, the United States awarded pensions to wounded veterans and widows and their children. If a person felt they not receiving the proper pension, they would appeal to their Congressman to pass a private law on their behalf. Presidents vetoed many of these since the relief request was improper.

The President and Congress also disagreed on several significant policy matters.

President Ulysses S. Grant

The cumulative number of vetoes totaled 88 from 1789 through 1869. In Grant’s eight years as President (1869 – 1877), he vetoed 93 bills. Over 50 of those vetoes related to ‘private’ bills. Some examples:

An act granting a pension to Richard B. Crawford. He wanted a lieutenant’s pension although he had been a private when wounded.
For the Relief of the children of John M. Baker, deceased. The bill proposed to pay a sum of money to the children of John M. Baker, for services as acting charge' d'affaires of the United States in the year 1834. As stated in Grant’s veto message: “Mr. Baker never did act as charge' d'affaires of the United States at Rio Janeiro… but, on the contrary, was expressly forbidden to enter into diplomatic correspondence with the Government of Brazil.”
For the Relief of Alexander Burtch. Here a deserter wanted a government pension. (“…Alexander Burtch, Company H, First Indiana Artillery, enlisted July 24, 1861, for three years, reenlisted as a veteran January 1, 1864, and deserted at Fort Gaines, Ala., September 25, 1865, and was a deserter at large at date of muster-out of his company, January 10, 1866.”)

You wonder how some of these bills got through Congress!

Grant did have substantive disagreements with Congress. Early in his second term, the ‘Panic of 1873’ hit the country, a deep economic downturn. In what became known as the ‘Inflation Bill of 1874’, Congress passed a law authorizing the printing of paper money that was not redeemable for gold or silver. Supporters felt this would fight the depression. After heavy lobbying, Grant vetoed the bill. Congress tried, but was unable to override this veto. Today, the Federal Reserve can create money though ‘Quantitative Easing.’ The Fed was not created until 1913. It runs independently of the Executive or Legislature.

As we all know, politicians serve the public interest and are not interested in personal gain. Consider 1873 when Congress, in a lame-duck session after the 1872 elections, passed a salary increase. Congress snuck the pay raise into an appropriations bill so they would not have to vote explicitly on a pay increase. This became known as the ‘Salary Grab.’ Due to public outcry, the newly elected Congress rescinded the pay increase for themselves although they left the Presidential increase (from $25,000 to $50,000) intact.

Several years later Congress decided to cut the Presidential salary back to $25,000. They exempted Grant from the cut; it would only apply to future Presidents. Grant vetoed it stating that future Presidents needed to be fairly compensated, especially due to the high cost of living in Washington DC. Grant noted that the Presidential salary had not increased since Washington was President some 80 years earlier.

President Rutherford Hayes (Republican 1877 - 1881)

President Hayes’ vetoes relate to two issues still controversial today.

Immigration – Congress was concerned that wages for American workers were undercut by immigrants, especially immigration from China. In 1879 Congress passed a bill to limit immigration from China, Hayes vetoed the bill because it violated the ‘Burlingham Seward’ treaty with China. This treaty legalized immigration from China into the United States. Today there is still a debate about the effect of immigration on wages. In addition, there is now controversy over outsourcing production to a country with lower wages.
Including unrelated legislation in needed appropriation bills. Congress used this tactic to prevent a Presidential veto by tying necessary spending bills to other legislation. The President must either accept or reject a bill in its totality. In 1878, during the post-Civil War reconstruction period, Congress passed a bill to ban the use of Federal Military to protect voters during elections. At the time, Black voters were subject to harassment and intimidation. The Federal government sent troops to protect these voters. The Democratic majority in Congress wanted to ban the use of the military in this manner. They knew Hayes would veto a ban, so Congress added the provision to a routine spending bill. Hayes vetoed the bill anyway. As he explains:
- “The bill provides…for the appropriations required for the support of the Army during the next fiscal year. If it contained no other provisions, it would receive my prompt approval. It includes, however, further legislation, [the ban on military protecting voters]…This is, however, not presented to me as a separate and independent measure, but is…attached to the bill making…appropriations for the support of the Army. It makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected with the use of the Army.”
- “The practice of tacking to appropriation bills measures not pertinent to such bills did not prevail until more than forty years after the adoption of the Constitution. It has become a common practice. Many abuses and great waste of public money have in this way crept into appropriation bills.”
- “The public welfare will be promoted in many ways by a return to the early practice of the Government and to the true principle of legislation, which requires that every measure shall stand or fall according to its own merits.”

What President Hayes needed was a line-item veto. Today, Governors in over 40 states have some form of a line-item veto that allows them to veto certain provisions of the bill without overturning the whole bill. In 1996, Congress, by a wide bipartisan margin, passed a law granting the President a line-item veto. President Clinton signed it into law. Click to see a video of his signing ceremony. He strongly supported the bill. When Clinton exercised this authority, the Federal Government was sued by several parties, including the City of New York and the Snake River Potato growers. Clinton had vetoed portions a bill that provided financial benefits to the plaintiffs among others. The Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto bill unconstitutional.

To be continued.

Click to view Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, or Part 6 of this series.