The sun., 1913-11-15
The Oycrman Amendment.

posing AN amendment of the Constitu-
nifty of the proposed amendment should
command for II the general and re-
>pcctful attention of the country. Mr..
NERMAN Is not only chairman of the
Senate Committee on Rules hut also
second In place among the ma jority
members Of both Appropriations and
Judiciary. lie is an influential legis-
latur. and this is serious measure of
the very first Importance
The proposed changes in the funda-
mental law concern the seventh section
~ Article l.. which establishes the
vet" power and provides for overruling
the veto. The changes are two.
The first change proposed makes the
vote In each house of Congress that IL
necessary To pass II reconsidcred bin or
concurrent resolution over the Presi-
dental veto "a majority Of the entire
membership of that house" instead Of
"iw'-third> of that house, AS is the
present requirement.
Whether this substitution of ma ior-
ity vote Of the entire membership for
Il two thirds vote Involves an ayyrau.
diz"nent of legislative power and n
Weakening of the Executives veto Is "A
question of arithmetic
For ~ least fifty years it has been an
established precedent I'm Congress that
the requirement Of n two-thirds vote 10
override II veto means two-thirds ~
the quorum present. not two-thr,ls Of
ne entire membership. For example
the full membership Of the House now
Is 435. If there is no vacancy. the
quorum 10 do business would be 2lS,
y bill might be passed in the first in
stance by mere majority Of that quo
rum; that Is, by the votes 81 only 10
Representatives.. If the bill is thus
passed and then diSapproved by the
President the least number Of Repre-
sentatives able to pass IL again over
the veto under the present system
would be twothirds Of n quorum, or
14G votes. Under the Ovcrman amend.
ment the minimum requisite for the
passage of the bill over the veto would
he majority of the entire member
ship. or us votes.
II, on the other hand, four hundred
members Of the House should be pres
ent when Il vetoed bill comes back for
reconsideration the vote required to
pass II ove.' the veto would he but 21S
under the Overman amendment, as
against the 2G7 that are needed as the
Constitution now stands.
So 1t depends altogether on the acci-
dent OF attendance at the time OF tho
reconsidering vote whether the Over
man amendment would make It more or
less difficult for Congress to overrue
presidential veto. On the whole II
seems that the effect would he to in
crease the power Of Congress and to
diminish that Of the President in the
matter Of legislation.
We confess that we are much more
interested In the second constitutional
change proposed by Mr.. OvERMAN's
resolution. This consists Of the intro
ductiOn In the text OF Section I of Ar
ticle ]. of the subjOined new provision:
THE President shall have power TO
approve or disapprove any item or Items
Of any appropriation bill embracing dis
tinct items, and the part or parts of the
bill approved shall be the law and the
item or items disapproved shall be void,
unless repassed according to the fore
going provisions and he shall In writing
state specifically the item or items he dis
approves, setting the same out In full in
his message, but In such cases the en-
rolled bill shall not be returned with the
Presidents objection"
We are heartily In favor OF the pur-
pose OF this proposed amendment. Per-
haps no other conceivable change In
the fundamental law would count 10
much for honest government. for Geo.
nOmical expenditures, for the blocking
of the schemes Of graft and the prof.
ects of extravaganza. The power to
veto Objectionable items In an appro-
priation bill without holding up the
entire measure and Obstructing the or
,linary operations Of Government IL a
power which the Presiden. ought 10
have. It's efficacy has been demonstrated
.n this State since 1874. There seems
IN be no possible argument against
II except such as may be suggested In
the interest OF logrolling. Indeed, the
language Of the Overman amendment
should be made broader 40 as to apply
clearly not only to separate items Of
monetary appropriation but also to
separate provisions Of general legisla-
ton attached with coercive intent az
"rider~' to money bill. The Presi-
dent should have power TO segregate
na' veto these too, when they seem to
h'ih objectionable, without Withholding
Ills approval from the entire bill.
senator OvERMAN's joint resolution