Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-15
RIGHTS OF PRESIDENT
Senator Spooner's Constitu-
tionaI Argument.
THE POWERS OF CONGRESS
Authority of Commander-in-Chief OF
the Army.
BROWNSVILLE CONTROVERSY
THE POWERS OF CONGRESS
BROWNSVILLE CONTROVERSY
Exhaustive Discussion Of the Limita-
lions Of Two Branches of the
Government.

Senator Spooner today resumed his dis
cuss.on of the Brownsville resolution, his
speech on this subject having been inter-
rupted by the adjournment of the Senate
yesterday. Is
There was very good attendance of sem
ators. and especially those who had taken
interest IT. the Brownsville affair were
his attentive listeners. Senator Foraker
carefully followed his words. Senator
Bacon was in his seat, and when some of
the senator's remarks were directed toward
him, he interrupted to rep.y or to explain
his attitude
Senator Carmack. who has in readiness
speech on the Brownsville affair. was also
in his place. The galleries were wei filed
but there was an entire lack of any SEN
satonal incident.
He said he agreed that 1t is for Congress
to determine the oath of enlistment of land
and sea forces, the duration of term, the
pay, the method of punishment and many
other regulations for the government of the
soldiers, but he could not agree that the
commander-in-chief is in time of peace or
war under the supreme control of Congress
The Constitution made the President the
COMMUNICATIVE chief of the army without
defining his functions. declared Mr..
Spooner.
He read from a decision in the Swayne
case in the court of claims that Congress
may reduce or abolish the military forces,
but so long there is a force the COM
mander-in-chief is supreme. This decision
set forth the views that the powers of
Congress and the powers of the comman-
der-in-chef are supreme and that one cam
not encroach upon the power of the other.
Il never heard until yesterday, said Mr..
Spooner, that the President had not the
power Of sending forces where he chose.
l never heard that that was not part of
the power of command, until this was pro-
claimed yesterday by the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Bacon)."
Power of Congress.
The point was made by Mr.. Spooner that
the Constitution does not say that Congress
has the power to govern the military forces,
but to make rules for the government OF
the army. He claimed that the words to
make rules" meant that the enforcement of
the regulations for the government of the
army rests absolutely with the President as
commander-in-chief. In cases where Con-
gress has legislated to reappoint men to the
army and navy, Mr. Spooner SAID tnat IL
rarely gave to the President authority, IN
his discretion to reappoint men or permit
their re-enliStment.
On this subject he engaged in brief col
loquy with Mr.. Bacon in which the Gen;
Fitziohn Porter case was referred TO, ana
it was recalled that President Arthur had
vetoed the first act of Congress concerning
Cen Porter, on the ground that Congress
had no right to pass an act TO compel MIN
to reappoint any man by name.
Mr. Spooner then cited the recent act or
Congress authorizing the PRESIDENT 10 re-
appoint cadets to the Naval Academy a1tcr
thew had been dismissed for hazlng, saying
that Congress then merely removed the bar
against reappointment, that hao peen raiseu
by Congress.
Contending that Mr.. Bacons theory that
Congress has supreme control OF the army
and navy and over the commandments
chief is the most dangerous proposition that
could be advanced, Mr.. Spooner again
brought the Georgia senator to his 1eet.
One-Man Power.
Mr. Bacon insisted that there could be no
more dangerous proposition than that the
great power of the army and navy should
he lodged in the will of one man, and the
two senators came into direct and positive
conflict on this point.
NJ Spooner declared that Mr.. Bacon's
nositioa was In utter disregard of the Con-
stitution itself; that absolute power has to
he lodged in the government somewhere,
and in the case under discussion this abSo-
lute rover had been divide between the
President and Congress: He SAID the cues,
ton OF whether the 16l negro soldiers had
been discharged from the army by an order
not in accord with the Presidents conStitu-
tional authority could be tested any day.
These men may go into the court of claims
and sue for their pay: and there test the
constitutionality of their discharges.
Messrs Spooner and Bacon agreed that
there are statutory provisions authorizing
the President to take the course he did. and
Mr. Spooner said it was not necessary,
therefore, for him to say whether the Con-
stitution empowered him to discharge SOL
dierS for the causes provoking the dis
missals at Brownsville
Discussing the great discretionary powers
nlaced in the hands of the President as
comma nder-in-chief of the army and navy,
Mr. Spooner said that he agreed that In
bad hands that power might protect the
yilest of murderers, the most dangerous
this great authority somewhere and 1t was
thought best to trust the responsibility OF
the executive to the people.
eff the President abuses his privilege"
said Mr. Spooner, eff he violates his oath
of office this is not the place to question
is provided for through the other end of thu
capitol"
Criticised the Procedure.
Mr.. Spooner said he wished the pro-
cedure in discharging the negroes had been
different 1t would have been much better
if there had been a court Of inquiry, where
all of the suspected soldiers could have been
examined and the witnesses against them
or for them cross-examined. But he thought
the question of power hinged article
of the articles of war. After reciting that
article the senator said that it was a per-
fectly plain proposition to him that this
gave to the comma nder-in- chief the right
to discharge men from the army without
honor and that this rule. in substance. has
been in existence as long as the army. The
article he said, covered the entire ques-
ton of discharges except that it provided
that man can be discharged by the Pres
ident as punishment.