The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-07-24
WILSON FIGHTS PLAN TO DIVIDE
 WAR CONTROL
(Continued From Page 1.)

 . T am not, beg you to believe. in any way questioning what might be the motives or. the purpose of the members of such committee. am ready to assume that they would wish to cooperate in the most patriotic spirit, but cooperation of that kind is not practicable in the circum- stances. The responsibility rests upon the administration. There are abund- ant existing means of investigation and of the effective enforcement of that responsibility.
 1T sincerely hope that upon the re- consideration of this matter both houses of Congress will see that my objections rest upon indisputable grounds. and that could only inter
 pret the final adoption of Section 23 as arising from a lack of confidence in myself"
 The section objected to by the President was embodied in an amend
 ment introduced by Senator Owen,
 Dmocrat, to take che place of a sim
 liar proposal by Senator Weeks, Re- publican. It was adopted by the Sem ate, 53 to 31, after a brief debate. Briefly, it would create a committee
 of five Senators and five Representa-
 tives to ascertain just how contracts were being let and money spent in the conduct of the war and to report to Congress whenever it, so desired. The President and the executive departments, under the provisioni would be compelled "to keep said committee fully advised as to such
 expenditures and contracts and the
 committee could compel attendance of witnesses in such inquiries as it chose to make.
 Vigorous opposition is developing also to the Senate liquor and, $2A bushel wheat amendments to the food bill. Prohibition advocates want to force acceptance of the House bone-dry provisions, or at least to ! compromise on a provision giving the
 President some control over beer and i light winess and power to com mandeer distilled liquors either in or out of bond. A large group of House members are opposed to leaving any minimum price for wheat in the bill.s 1 In a letter to Chairman Lever of the House Agriculture committee the President pointed out in frank terms that such a committee would be likely l to constantly harass those directly responsible for the conduct of the war. Retention of the section, he mo- tifed Congress, he would be compelled to interpret as signifying "a lack of confidence in myself
 | MT Lever and other House leaders are understood to be ready to make
 a determined fight against the pro-
 vision, which was voted into the bill
 near the close of the long Senate de-
 bate.
 | The House leaders, also are plan
 ming to oppose vigorously the Sem ate's provision for a food control
 board of three members instead of
 one administrator, and there are many
 indications that in this likewise they
 will have the Presidents unqualified
 backing.
 | MT. Wilson wrote to Representative
 Lever in response to a letter promis- l ing to hasten the fool bill through
 conference and asking advice on the
 war committee provision. The Presi- dents reply follows:
 | '1 am very much obliged to you for
 your thoughtful courtesy in stating
 to me the circumstances of the pres- ent action on the food administration l bill, and am particularly obliged to you for calling my attention to Sec tion 23. I deem 1t uny duty to express I my opinion about that section and it's effect upon the whole administration
 of the war very frankly indeed, since l he public interest manifestly de- mands that I should do so.
 Section 23 is not only entirely for eign to the subject matter of the food administration bill in which 1t is in- lcorporated, but would if enacted into law, render my task of conducting the
 was practically impossible. I cannot
 believe that those who proposed this
 section scrutinized ite with care or an- falyzed the effects which it's operation
 would necessarily have.
 l ''The constant supervision of exec utive action which it contenplates
 would amount to nothing less. than an l assumption on the part of the legis- lative body of the executive work of | the administration"