For the Southern Telegraph.
nLOGICn
{"character_count": 1698, "word_count": 296, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9343000054359436], "ccnet_perplexity": [2043.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Mr. Edtor--Your correspondent 60"
takes some person Or persons, to task, for
having maintained that President of the
United States, by veroing law Of Congress
on the ground OF its inexpedioncy, it not be
ing liable to any constitutional objection, in
Cured the guilt ofmOraI perjury.


lam not of The number who have con-
tended for such doctrine: nor am | about
to enter upon its vindication. Its advocates,
whose logic affords &C." so much amuse-
ment, are, presume, competent to the
successful conduct of their own intellectu-
al warfare. But an examination of the
nature Of legislation, and the authority by
which the power is exercised by Congress-
will show that the proposition which have
quoted, and which "Q,n so facetous y as
sails, is not absurd or indefensibIe. The
first section of the first article of the Con
sttution of the United States declares tina
ssau LEGISLATIVE power herein granted
shall be vested in Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of Senate ant
House of Representatives" ="


Was it ever contended, or can it be con


tended, that the trainers of the Constitution


designed comforting substantive legislatiy


power upon the President, when they in


vested him with the qualified veto, define


in the seventh article Of that instrument.
4 It must be borne in mind that the prope
siiion which 90" assails is, not that Pre
{ sident in the case supposed, would be guilt
t Fof perjury in the technical or legal sense {
that term but that the act in question: woul
, bea violation of the spirit Of the constit,
, Ftton, and Of the spirit and intent Of his oat
to support it.


The extent Of The power intended to |
conferred on the President BY The seYen'