the country strongly to this part of the case.  I say again, therefore, that, when this vote for the three millions was proposed to the Senate, there was nothing before us showing that the President recommended any such appropriation.  You very well know, Sir, that this objection was stated as soon as the message from the House was read.  We all well remember that this was the very point put forth by the honorable member from Tennessee,[3] as being, if I may say so, the but-end of his argument in opposition to the vote.  He said, very significantly, and very forcibly, “It is not asked for by those who best know what the public service requires; how, then, are we to presume that it is needed?” This question, Sir, was not answered then; it never has been answered since, it never can be answered satisfactorily.

But let me here again, Sir, recur to the message of the President.  Speaking of the loss of the bill, he uses these words:  “This failure was the more regretted, not only because it necessarily interrupted and delayed the progress of a system of national defence projected immediately after the last war, and since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a contingent appropriation, inserted in accordance with the views of the executive, in aid of this important object, and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which might have been most usefully applied during the past season.”

Taking these words of the message, Sir, and connecting them with the fact that the President had made no recommendation to Congress of any such appropriation, it strikes me that they furnish matter for very grave reflection.  The President says that this proposed appropriation was “in accordance with the views of the executive”; that it was “in aid of an important object”; and that “some portions of it might have been most usefully applied during the past season.”

And now, Sir, I ask, if this be so, why was not this appropriation recommended to Congress by the President?  I ask this question in the name of the Constitution of the United States; I stand on its own clear authority in asking it; and I invite all those who remember its injunctions, and who mean to respect them, to consider well how the question is to be answered.

Sir, the Constitution is not yet an entire dead letter.  There is yet some form of observance of its requirements; and even while any degree of formal respect is paid to it, I must be permitted to continue the question, Why was not this appropriation recommended?  It was in accordance with the President’s views; it was for an important object; it might have been usefully expended.  The President being of opinion, therefore, that the appropriation was necessary and proper, how is it that it was not recommended to Congress?  For, Sir, we all know the plain and direct words in which the very first duty of the President is imposed by the Constitution.  Here they are:—­

“He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”