Judge Curtis was so influenced by the consideration that to claim such a power for the President would give him a double veto upon all of the acts of Congress, a veto when acting as a part of the legislature in the enactment of law, and then a purely executive veto which could be overcome only by an adverse judicial decision, that he expressed his contention on the subject in very {183} cautious language. He declared that the President claimed no such general power as that, but he said "when a question arises whether a particular law has cut off a power confided to him by the people through the Constitution, and he alone can raise that question, and he alone can cause a judicial decision to come between the two branches of the Government to say which of them is right, and after due deliberation, with the advice of those who are his proper advisers, he settles down firmly upon the opinion that such is the character of the law, it remains to be decided by you, Senators, whether there is any violation of his duty when he takes the needful steps to raise that question and have it peacefully decided." The great lawyer refused thus to commit himself upon this fundamental question of constitutional law. And well he might, for to recognize any such power in the President would be to enable him to rule with such arbitrariness as to upset the principles and practices of all free government. The President can constitutionally defend his prerogatives with the veto power, a power which nothing short of a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress can overcome, and he has no other power of defence confided to him by the Constitution. He must execute the laws passed over his veto upon matters which in his opinion touch his executive prerogatives, just the same as upon all other matters, and if persons not connected with the administration of the laws do not call such measures in question before the courts, the remedies provided by the Constitution for the people of the United States are either the election of members of Congress who will repeal the enactments, or else the amendment of the Constitution so as to repeal them. It was, however, a question whether, in showing the sole purpose of making an issue before the courts, the {184} President would not clear himself of any criminal intent. Happily his case did not require this, as was demonstrated by his counsel and by Senators Trumbull and Fessenden in their opinions. [Sidenote: The law in the case.]