The daily commonwealth. (Greenwood, Leflore Co., Miss.) 1916-1919, 1916-12-27
SHALL THE PRESIDENTS VETO POWER BE
a. ENLARGED?

AAAA - EN- ~
e. ENLARGED?
Because the President must approve a bill as
whole or the entire appropriation fails, and be.
cause appropriation bills are frequently presented
for action by the President which contain as rid.
ers provisions Of law which have nothing to dc
with the appropriation, the Greenwood Business
League has been asked to go on record for OF
against a suggested amendment to the Constitu.
ton which would permit the President to approve
or disapprove any separate items or provisions
in any appropriation bill.
The question presented to the Greenwood Bus
mess League through a referendum submitted by
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
to the principal organizations of the country.
1t is argued, Mr.. w. II. Hays, Secretary of
Greenwood Business League said in discussing
the referendum, the appropriation provisions of
a bill may be entirely in the public interest but
those relating to the rider directly against the
public interest. If the President had power to
veto items and provisions in such bills, he could
approve one and veto the other; but being con-
jointly the President is now compelled to approve
both or veto both. The President is thus de-
prived of the power of using his own discretion
and coerced into either accepting that which his
judgment disapproves, or defeating that which
he believes wise and necessary. This lack of pow
er of the Chief Executive was declared to be one
of the reasons for the existence Of what is now
known as the pork barrel"
Power to veto separate items, it is explained,
is a pure economy matter. With out It Congress
can put through a pork barrel item of appropria-
ton or a series of such items, which the President
cannot veto without at the same time vetoing the
supply bill for running the government. This
power to veto separate items of an appropriation
is given to many governors, separate and distinct
entirely from questions of riders.
The National Chamber referendum raises the
question Of giving the President also power of
vetoing riders which is not an economy power,
but power to prevent Congress from forcing him
to approve legislation by lacking it on to an ap-
preparation bill which he cannot afford to veto as
a whole. Where rider legislation is prevented by
state constitutions, it is not through power to
veto, but through restriction on the legislation by
a bill must deal with one subject of legislation
which must be adequately set forth in the title
Of the bill.
It was at the request of the Merchants Asso-
citation OF New York that the National Chamber
took up the veto question. With the referendum
are affirmative arguments advanced by the Mer-
Association and its representative, Will
liam C. Breed, of New York. On the other hand,
as is invariably the case when the National Cham
Der asks its members to pass judgment upon a
question, the referendum carries an abstract of
the arguments against the proposal to be voted
upon.
The appropriation bills for three sessions of
the Sixty-second Congress covered an expenditure
Of $l,302, 1879, 1884, 60 and represented upwards OF
different appropriation measures in each
session, many of which came to the President at
the conclusion of the session when there was a
great press of legislation and little time in which
to consider it. Vetoing any of these, it is pointed
out, would have meant a serious clogging of the
business Of national government.
THE President is practically powerless to pre-
vent these abuses" the argument goes on, (which
lie at the root of governmental extravaganza by
reason of the fact that he can exercise no discre-
as to individual items, but must accept meas
lres as a whole or reject them as a whole"
45 days are allowed for the balloting which
will close January %. A..
High army officers to the contrary notwith-
-