New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-04-04
THE PROPOSED VETO
Increased Power Of Speaker
Legislative Changes.

While there has been movement in
the opposite direction IN the House OF
representatives. az Washington. the
Radical reforuners here are seeking 70
convert the non-paTtisso Speaker into
an arbiter between the rival houses.
Where's the veto Of the Lords on gen
eraI legislation win be converted by thu
government proposals into suspensivs
function for two years. n viii become
absolute for a money bin
a definition of a money bin IS sup
piled In the first veto resolution. and tho
Speaker is authorized % interpret il. L
i'm his opinion IL De o Legitimate money
bill IL VIII become law after passass
by the Commons. the Lords under ths
proposed procedure not having any right
either 20 amend or 10 reject ~. IA
there have been frequent controversies
over the practice Of Incorporating ex-
traneous legislation in money bills. the
Speaker viii be Transformed into an o.
pert on "tackng.' with authority for
deciding whether the budget. or nv
finance measure is in proper form. HIS
Interpretation will be the only substi-
tuts for the suspensive veto exercised
by the Lords last December
The choice OF Speaker was originally
crown appointment. and subsequently
II was a trial Of strength between par
ties. Until 1874 when Speaker Brand
was reinstated by a Conservative gov
eminent after being chosen by a Lib
eral Parliament. he was pa-tiear hold
f,,1~ In, = -
Of the day. The superior practice ~ -
tanning the Speaker until he considers
it necessary 10 retire from public III,
has prevailed for more than a genera
ton
AZ the Speakership has ceased % "a
political office its dignity and i1Au-
snCe have increased. In 2 general cleo
ton the Speaker is no longer opposed
as candidate. and so essentially non
partisan is he in his relations to gov
eminent and Opposition that members
do not think OF him as having any DO
htiCal bias. No appeals are taken from
his decision, as was recently done in
Washington. and there are never any
accusations Of dictatorial conduct or
partisan manipulation OF rules. preCa-
dents or tactics. II viii be public
misfortune. ~ the Speaker in couse-
qUence OF the adoption Of the Radical
proposals be forced to make decisions
which may expose him 20 reproach for
partisanship.
The main objection raised BY the
Lords last November against the budget
was grounded upon the introduction q
controversial questions under the form
OF finance. II was alleged that the prin-
ciples of the land valuation and Hcens-
ing bills. which had been defeated By
the upper house. was revived in the
budget i'm a vindictive and punitive
form. The charge was denied by minis
ters. and the Lord Chancellor made q.
clever defence against lacking" whal
the budget was discussed by the Lords;
and from beginning 70 end there vas in
cessant wrangling over the privileges oS
the Commons i'm financial LEGISLATION and
the abuses Of lacking.
If the procedure outlined IN thu vsta
resolution were carried into practices tia
Speaker would have 70 decide WHAT was
legitimate finance and what was unfair
lacking. and in such highly con+ro-
versial matters his non partisan char
acter would probably h tainted and tbs
dignity of his Office sacrificed One has
only % revert to the complications over
the repeal Of the paper duties and the
abolition of army purchase in order 70
be convinced that a tremendous Increase
Of power would follow the conversion OF
the Speaker into an arbiter between W.,
houses jealous Of their rights. and that
sooner or later he would become 4 Do
Htical partisan, dependent upon the
party in power and distrustsd BY ths
Opposition.
With the three exceptions OF the ex-
pansion Of the Speakers functions. the
absolute veto upon the Lords Interior
ence with finance and the limitation OF
the duration Of Parliament to five years
and the last two features cannot ba
considered novelties when ministers
have been talking about them for many
weeks-the Campbell annerman pro-
posals respecting general legislation
have been taken up without material
modification. y bill. which has been
passed three times by the same Parlia-
ment and rejected as many times by tbs
Lords. will become law by rovaI assent.
if two years shah have elapsed from its
primary Introduction. and il shall have
been sent for the third time OF asking
fun month before the close OF the ses-
sion. These proposals contain adeQuats
safeguards against hasty and III d.
gested legislation: but they do not re-
leve the government from the inplica-
ton of preferrinS a single chamber TO
two coordinate bodies with a system
Of checks and balances sucn as Is car
ried out under the American Consrftu-
ton
The chief objection offered by extren1s
Radicals and Labor members 70 the
veto resolutions is based upon the inter
val Of two carS-practicdlly 10 might
be three years-between the introduction
and final passage Of 4 controversial bin.
They assert that this proviso would
steriize the closing years % a Parlia-
ments term. since important measures
likely To- excite resistance from thu
peers would have 20 he introduced either
in the first or in the second session IN,
order o. De- carried over the sUspenslvs
veto.