The Washington herald., 1911-08-28
The Presidents Veto Power.

The fact that the President in the
closing hours of Congress exercised
his veto power upon measures that had
received legislative approval has created
considerable discussion.
Senator Reed, of Missouri, for in
stance, criticises the President with
some severity, because he interposed his
personal opinion concerning the recall
of judges in opposition to the expressed
will of Congress. He claims that the
President overstepped his authority in
refusing to consent to the admission of
State when the government of the
proposed State was republican in
form as contemplated by the language
of the Constitution. I'VE substi-
tute for the Constitution" says
Senator Reed, "the mandate of one
individual" He added, too, that in the
future it would be within the power of
a President following the precedent
set by Mr.. Taft, to decline to admit a
State because it did not provide for the
recall of the judiciary.
Representative Underwood utters
practically the same sentiment when he
says that the real issue before the
American people is not whether the tar
if shall be lowered, but whether a
President shall, 'by unjustifable as
sumption of power" thwart the will of
the people. He thinks it was unbecoming
in the President to advise the repre-
sentatives of the people that they could
only legislate on such terms and at such
times as he authorized them so to do,
and then he adds:
"The fathers who wrote the Federal
Constitution prescribed that the Execu-
tive, legislative, and judicial branches
of the government should be indepen-
dent of each other. They adopted this
course to insure the liberties of the
American people and to prevent power
loving man occupying the executive
Office from subordinating the other
branches of the government to his will
in an unwarranted increase of the
powers of the executive Office"
The discussion is not a new one.
More than once, in the history of this
country, the exercise of the veto power
by the President has excited adverse
comment; but there never has been, and
never will be, serious effort to abolish
this prerogative. In the first place, there
is no question as to the absolute consti-
tutional right of the President to dis
approve any measure which may be sub
mitted to him by the legislative branch
of the government The Constitution
is brief and explicit "If he approve, he
shall sign it; but if not, he shall return
it, with his objections, to that House in
which it shall have originated" In
fact, if he does not approve its pro-
visions, it is mandatory upon him to
send it back, stating the reasons for his
declination to afix his signature
1t will be remembered, of course, that
this veto power was not conferred upon
the Executive without serious opposi-
ton. The very criticisms which are now
made were uttered before the Constitu-
ton was finally adopted. The idea of
allowing one man to be a powerful
obstacle in the way of legislation was
denounced as odious and unrepublican.
The fact, however, that the PROVISION
was inserted despite all these objections
indicated that the founders of the gov
ernment felt that in no other way could
the executive and legislative branches
of the government be placed upon an
equality. If the President had been
compelled, under the Constitution, to ap-
prove every action of Congress, he
would have been subordinate and not
coordinate Any one who will take the
trouble to read the Federalist letters,
in which every phase of the Constitu-
ton is fully expounded, will find that
the Presidential veto was carefully con-
sidered from every point of view.
1t is true that the defense of the
veto power expressed the Hamiltonian
doctrine, and that Hamilton was more
or less fearful of popular rule. At the
same time, it is interesting to know that
it was foreseen, ere the government
was established, that in the future there
would occur the very situation which
has now arisen. It was asserted even
then that no single man would possess
more virtue and wisdom than a num-
Der of men" 1t was even said that a
self-assertive Executive would welcome
an opportunity to measure his strength
against the National Legislature. To
these objections and many others the
answer was made that the veto power
was not absolute, such as is exercised
by the ruler of Great Britain, but was
qualified, and that the President If
manifestly in the wrong. could be over
ruled by the Legislature with which he
had taken issue. This, after all, was
the argument which had the greatest
weight and which led to the adoption
of the Constitution in its present form.