Evening star., 1919-11-16
Subject of Exhaustive Report.

the two houses.
Subject of Exhaustive Report.
This question as to whether concur
! rent resolutions must be submitted to
the President for his approval is not
a new one in the Senate-in fact. a very
! exhaustive report was submitted on
| the subject by the late David p. Hill
of New York, in 1897, after the Senate
| judiciary committee had investi-
| gated it.
! The report cites all the cases Of
the adoption of concurrent resolutions
| by Congress from the First to the
| Twelfth Congresses, inclusive, to
| show the development of the prac-
| tice of passing resolutions which are
not submitted to the President for his
| approval.
! Legislative action by Congress. the
| report shows, has been accomplished
| by bill and joint resolution, and on
few occasions where legislative ac-
| ton was intended, other resolutions
have been submitted to the President
for his approval
The report concludes, therefore.
! that the substance and not the new
| form of the concurrent resolutions of
| Congress must be considered in deter
mining whether they are to be sub
mitted to the President for his ap-
! proval. OF the hundreds of concur
rent resolutions adopted by Congress
without submission to the President,
Mr.. Hill says:
! They have uniformly been regarded
by all departments Of the government
| as matters peculiarly within the prov
ince of Congress alone. They have
never embraced legislative provisions
proper, and hence have not been
prevail"
Practice Defined.
Further in .ho -0r~.' e.. - --:S.
| 1T has been the uniform practice of
congress, s...,. ~-,.
the government, not to present con-
current resolutions to the President
for his approval, and to avoid incor-
porating in such resolutions any mat
Ter of strict legislation requiring such
| presentation. AS a matter of pro-
priety and expediency 1t is ha1'nved
to be wise to continue that course in
| the future.
We conclude this branch of the
subject by deciding the general ques-
| ton submitted to us, to wit, whether
concurrent resolutions are required to
be submitted to the President of the
| their mere form, but upon the fact
whether they contain matter which
| is properly to be regarded as legisla-
| tive in it's character and eject. If they
|
proval, otherwise, they need not be.
In other words. we hold that the clause
of the Constitution which declares
that every order. resolution or vote
must be presented to the President, to
which the concurrence Of the Senate
and the House of Representatives may
be necessary refers to the necessity
loccasioned by the requirements of the
other provisions of the Constitution.
WHEREBY every exercise of Legislative
lpowers' involves the concurrence of
the two houses, and every resolution
not so requiring such concurrent ac-
tion. to wit, not involving the exer-
else of legislative powers, need not be
presented to the President In brief,
the nature or substance of the resolu-
ton, and not its form. controls the
question of its disposition
Contentious in Debate.
If the findings Of the Senate judi
clary committee are correct, then the
question which alone arises in regard
to this reservation Is whether the
action proposed to be taken by con-
current resolution is legislative. Dur
ing the debate in the Senate when the
resolution was adopted some of the
senators contended that the proposal
to withdraw the United States from
the league of nations would certainly
be legislative action. Others. how
ever, took the opposite view and de-
clared that the act would not be leg
islative, and that Congress had a right
by concurrent action specified in the
reservation to give notice that the
United States would be withdrawn
from the league.
The text of the reservation itself
follows:
The United States SO understands
and construes article l that in case
of notice of the withdrawal from the
league of nations, as provided in said
article, the United States shall be the
sole judge as to whether all its interna-
tional obligations and all its obligations
under the said covenant have been full
filed, and notice of withdrawal by the
United States may be given by a con-
current resolution of the Congress of
the United States"
Function of Notification.
The senators who contend that the
concurrent resolution giving notice
of withdrawal of the United States
from the league does not have to be
approved by the President contend
that it is not a legislative act; that
Congress would merely be performing
a function of notification. Senator
Hoke Smith of Georgia takes this
view of the matter. and in this he has
the concurrence Of Senator Knox of
Pennsylvania.
"The reservation might have pro-
vided that the President should give
the notice of withdrawal. or the Chief
Justice Of the Supreme Court, instead
LOT Congress-" said Senator Smith. 1.-THE
Constitution provides that resolutions
of Congress which call for the concur
renee of the two houses must be sign