Evening star., 1915-03-07
Who Has Power, President or
Congress? Asks Secre-
tary Garrison.
OBJECTS TO LEGISLATION
HAMPERING EXECUTIVE
Extraordinary Contention" Say
Senator Chamberlain and Repre-
sentative Hay in Joint Reply.

Who controls the army. the Presi
tion nut up to Senator Chamberlain
and Representative Hay, chairmen of
the Senate and House military affairs
committees in an unusually spicy bit of
correspondence passing between these
two and Secretary Garrison of the
War department The Secretary de-
ciares that "concedinS that Congress
has full power to order the movements
of every man in the army at it's will,
1 feel that no worse thing could happen
than for Congress to attempt to exer-
else that power" He also takes the
ground that the executive should not
be hampered in Its control of the army
by legislation. 10 which Senator Cham
berlain and Representative Hay have
replied in joint letter that the Secre-
tary has put forward IAN extraordi-
nary contention"
The correspondence passed between
the Capitol and the War Department
III the closing days of Congress and
is based on the several new legislative
features in the army appropriation
bill requiring the army administrat ton
to do great many things regardless
of what the commanding officers may
think about it. Reviewing these legis-
lative provisions, Secretary Garrison
said in part:
Garrison Voices Objections.
What | desire to object to- and 10
express q s strongly as l am capable of
doing the reasons in favor of my OBJ
lection. is the attempt the part OF
Congress from time TO time in 1egisla-
tion similar TO this to actually take
iri' It's own hands the direction and
command of the officers and men of the
army. Many of the matters which are
thus legislated upon may be entirely in
keeping with proper administration
many of the matters which are thus en-
Joined upon the executive to be done
should probably be done by him: but
s..t f." Is, IL seems to me, is wide of
the mark and does not lend any
strength whatever to the suggestion
that 1t is proper for Congress to thus
direct and command the force The
executive, 1t seems to me, under our
system of government. should be left
Tree in his sphere to do the executive
and administrative duties necessary to
Z" G11ps'r tuIillinent thereof. Just as
the Congress must be left absolutely
free within it's sphere.
ithout going into details. as
have said that i do not care to do 7
desire for the purpose of clarity to
suggest that where the purpose of such
legislation is to amplify the power of
the executive or to remove restrictions
now existing upon him with respect to
personnel. the legislation would be-
come unobjectionable if the language
clearly leaves IT to the discretion of
the executive. Several of the provi-
sions that | have alluded to seem
to me to raise the question as to
whether they are not mandatory in
stead of being permissive."
Congressman in Joint Reply.
Senator Chamberlain and Represent
ative Hay in joint reply, dated
March >. said in part:
We observe that in discussing the
general subject of army legislation and
after referring to certain specific items
Of such legislation in the pending
army appropriation bill you object
very strongly to what you have seen
ut TO stigmatize as the attempts on
the part of Congress from time to
time in legislation similar to this to
actually take into its own hands the
direction and command of the army
other remarks to the same effect
SHOW clearly that your contention is
in effect that certain accomplished or
proposed legislative measures which
do not meet your approval are at
tempts by Congress to usurp some part
TO command the army
II the power of the executive to
command the army embraces the power
to do whatever the executive NAV feel
disposed to do to or with the army this
extraordinary contention of YOURS ma v
De correct. otherwise il is baSeless We
think that on more mature reflection
You Will be disposed to admit that the
power of military command vested in
the executive is limited BY and must be
executed in accordance with such rules
as may De prescribed by Congress in
the exercise of the power vested in il
py the Constitution, also that the gem
eral legislation of which you now com
PLAN is and has been merely the pre-
scr1ption by Congress of certain gem
crai rules under which command of the
army might be exercised but which,
rules of themselves have nothing what
ever OF the nature of such command
we also note in your letter certain
comments that seem to us to indicat g
that you view some of the legislat ton
IN question as an attempt by Congress
10 regulate the personal movements of
individual officers and enlisted men. To
this we have only to say that we know
of nothing to justify any such asser
ton or fntimation.
with regard to the particular items
or legislation. referred to in your let
ters and embodied in the pending army
appropriation bill, We observe thar
Two are criticised by you as raising the
question of whether they are not man
datory instead of permissive.
II is our opinion. as lawyers and as
cnalrrnen OF our respective committees
tnat the two provisions in question are
purely permissiye, and that the exec
utiVe would be entirely at liberty to
disregard either or both of them If SO
disposed to do. However, if there
should be doubt N your mind as to the
provisions being pernlissive we feel