The bill passed the Houses on the 13th of July, was presented to the President for his signature on the 14th, and on the 19th he returned it with a veto message to the House of Representatives. The President contended in his argument that this new measure was not simply an interpretation of the existing Reconstruction Acts, but was in many respects a large advance upon them. The existing Acts, he contended, made the reconstructed "State" governments at the South subject to absolute military authority in many important respects, but not in all respects, while the new measure proposed to extend the despotism of the military commanders over everything. Against such a measure, in time of peace, he protested as being in violation of every guaranty of {141} individual liberty contained in the Constitution. He dwelt upon the unfitness of military officers to discharge the duties and exercise the powers pertaining naturally to civil office, and he pointed out the inconsistency, as he thought, of the declaration of Congress that the ten "State" governments at the South were illegal with the attempt of Congress to carry on these _illegal_ "State" governments by "Federal agency," when Congress had no power to carry on a _legal_ "State" government through "Federal agency"; and he stopped, as he thought, the way of escape from this argument by pointing out that the entire legislation of Congress down to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts distinctly involved the recognition of the ten communities now to be put under absolute military rule in all respects as "States" of the Union. But the most vigorous and unanswerable part of the message was the protest against the robbery of the constitutional powers of the Executive by the attempt of Congress, in this measure, to confer some of those powers upon other persons. The President expressed himself so warmly upon this point, that the Republicans began to whisper around their suspicions of sinister purposes on his part, just as if such a declaration to Congress itself was not proof to the contrary. He said: "Whilst I hold the chief executive authority of the United States, whilst the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws are faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the powers given for its execution. I can never give my assent to be made responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the same time surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any other executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive officers. If this executive trust, vested by the Constitution in the President, is to be taken from him {142} and vested in a subordinate officer, the responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its exercise." [Sidenote: Ideas and suspicions about the meaning of the message.]