Evening star., 1912-06-17
ARMY CASH BILL
VETOED BY TAFT
Continued from First Page.D

Continued from First Pageo
| power to authorize the commencement
| of new posts or to change in any man.
ner the posts now in existence in the
United States.
The second provision introduced by
| the conference provides that no officer
after March s. 1913, shall be permitted
| to serve as chief of staff unless he
shall have served at least ten years as
| commissioned officer of the line OF
| the army in grades below that OF
brlgadier general This provision
would render ineligible after that date
| for serivec in the most important posi-
| ton of the army the present chief or
| staff and many other of the most EN-
| cient officers of the army.
! This brief summary of the history
! and character of the affirmative legfs-
! lation attached to this bill serves TO
| bring out the objections thereto. The
| dangers inherent in the practice OF at
| taching substantive legislation to ap-
preparation bills have been frequently
| pointed out by my predecessors.
The only justification that has been Of
fered for such practice is that 1t has been
found convenient method for facilitating
the passage of measures which are
deemed expedient by all the branches of
government which participate in legisla-
ton. Thus 1t has more than once occur
red that useful items of army legislation,
generally of an urgent character. have
DeeH pdSSeu III tIlS IidHHeI. htI tHC dV-
sira bility of the enactment was recognized
and acquiesced in by the common consent
of both the executive and of Congress.
But no condition of urgency Is here
disclosed nor can 1t be claimed that there
Is any such reason for attaching the pres
ent legislation to this army appropriation
bill The history of the measure fatty
contradicts this assumption The most
important provisions insisted on by the
House of Representatives in this bill have
been inserted therein against the recon-
mendation of the President. the Secretary
of War and the general staff of the army.
They are earnestly opposed by those OFF,
GERS whose experience and knowledge as
to matters of army organization and ad-
ministration Is presumed to be that of
experts.
The primary purpose of the two pro-
visions last inserted in conference Is to
limit the existing choice of the President
as to his military adviser and to limit
the power of his Secretary Of War as to
the distribution of the mobile army
Taken as a whole. it would be hard to
conceive of a clearer instance of an at
tempt to force upon the executive legisla-
tfon we'll known to be disapproved by
him, and. by attaching such legislation
to one of the great supply bills or the
government. to deprive the President OF
his constitutional power as to legisla-
ton.
Has Precedent in Hayes.
There can be no constitutional defenSe
to such a practice On the contrary, such
attempts have been firmly resisted by my
predecessors In 1879 President Hayes
vetoed an army appropriation bill be-
cause there had been added to 1t by Con-
gress similar provisions of substantive
law. He said:
1T is clearly the constitutional duty OF
the President to exercise his dlscreuon
and judgment upon all bills presented TO
him without conStraint or duress from
any other branch of the government. TO
saw that a majority of either or both OF
the houes of Congress may insist upon
the approval of a bill under the penalty
of stopping all of the operations OF the
government for want of the necessary
supplies is to deny to the executive tnat
share of the Legislative power which Is
plainly conferred by the second section OF
the seventh article of the Constitution IT
strikes from the Constitution the qualifled
negative of the President.
rhe legislation attached to the present
army appropriation bill seems to me to be
clearly objectionable In the following re-
spects:
First The provision above mentioned,
limiting the eligibility of officers to be
chief of staff, narrowS the choice or ne
President in selecting incumpents Tor tne
most impOrtant position of the army.
Had it been in operation in past years, II
would have disqualified the majority OK
the most brilliant officers OF our army.
1t tends to put a premium upon mere
routine service and to exclude from the
highest post of the army the men whose
force. intelligence and opportunities have
brought them quickly to the front. 1t
would tend to confine the choice for this
principal staff position TO men VINO nave
had the least staff experience.
IF in addition, this provision, as has
been asserted in the debates Of Congress.
has been introduced for the purpose or
affecting the future OF individual omcers
now upon the army list it contains vice
frequently reprobated by executive action
in disapproving army legislation.
"Second BY reducing the number Of
the general staff. the bill, In my opinion.
tends to cripple the most important corps
of the army-that corps which, though OF
comparatively recent organization. Is per-
forming inva aluable work toward the crea-
ton of consistent military policy for
the nation and the organization OF an
efficient and economical army. II, as 1
believe to be the case. this bill would
make necessary the reduction of the
work of the War College, harm would be
done to our military establishment which
would be well nigh incalculable.
Would Seriously Impede Work.
Third BY the provisions Of the bill
which limit the period during which an
officer may remain upon detached service
or staff duty, the organized personnel of
many of the most important bureaus and
corps of the War Department and mill
tary establishment will be disintegrated
and the work now proceeding under them
will be seriously impeded. While these
provisions aim at wise purpose, and one
which my administration has sought to
carry out by executive action with espe-
cial thoroughness. the enactments of this
bill are deemed too radical and drastic.
By removing at once all of the officers
Of the bureau Of insular affairs except Its
chief they would seriously interfere with
the work of that most important bureau
in administering the affairs of our insular