Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-05-15
VETOED BILL T0BE
CHANGED At ONCE
House Appropriations Com
mittee to Kill Contested
Amendment.

! Having failed by twenty-eight votes
to override the Presidents veto on
| the legislative, executive and judi
cial appropriation bill yesterday. the
| House appropriations committee will
, meet Monday with tho intention Of
reporting out Immediately the same
! bill with the amendment to which
the President took exception stricken
out.
Chairman Good of the House appro-
/ priations committee and Representa-
| tive Thomas U. Sisson of Mississippi.
I; he democratic conferee for the House
on the legislative bill. both said To-Day
that they believe the committee Will
take the position Of letting the Presi-
dent have just what his veto message
said he wanted.
AT the same time they said: The
| President has already approved IN
the act of March l. 1919. a provision
which would cut off all OF the govern
ment publications. In the amend
ment just vetoed by the President we
sought to liberalize that provision
and allow the executive departments
to continue the publication OF certain
journals, bulletins, reports. etc. ap-
proved by the joint COMMITTEES on
printing. II the President really
already approved it. cutting of all
publications. We do not think that
Congress will object"
Interpretation Of Present Law.
The provision in law to which Mr..
Good and Mr.. SiSson referred is to
the effect that no journal, magazine
or periodical. etc. shall be printed or
issued by any branch or officer OF the
government unless specifically au-
thorized by law. Representative 10
seph w. Byrnes OF Tennessee, the
ranking democrat on the appropria-
lions committee. who led the fight to
sustain the Presidents veto. in q
speech on the floor yesterday agreed
that this was a correct Interpretation
Of the existing law.
Failed to Override Veto.
The vote on the motion to override the
veto was 10 to 127.
The republican majority was unable
to muster the requisite two-thirds
majority to repass the measure In
spite of the Presidents veto because
It contained what he termed an in
frIngement on the executive authority,
even though five democrats broke
party lines and voted with the ma
5ority.. These were Gallivan and Oh
ney of Massachusetts,, Sisson of Mis-
sissippi, Lea of California and Evans
of Nevada. Randall Of California,
prohibitiontst. and Keller of Minne-
sofa. Independent. also voted with the
republicans.
The vote carries with it a denial of
opportunity for the Senate to at
tempt offsetting the veto. for the re-
drafted measure will leave the House
without the provision relating to pow
ers of the joint committee on print
ing. at which the veto was aimed.
While the House was considering
the question. Senator Smoot of Utah.
author of the provision and chairman
OF the joint committee. told the Sem
ate that the President had been mis-
informed as to the effect of the pro-
vision which would have given the
committee control Of all government
publications Roger Babson, formerly
connected with the committee on pub
lie information. and others attack
ing the joint committee were &C
cused by Mr.. Smoot Of having misled
the President.
Cites Last Years Bill.
The senator added that the Presi-
dent had signed bill last year CIV
ing the joint committee greater pow
er than was proposed by the vetoed
provisions.
Republicans in the House debate
also voiced similar complaint. but
the democrats replied that Congress
partments of the government. and
that it failed to enact laws that would
provide for the continuance of use
full publications.
Chairman Good of the appropria-
lions committee declared that 155
publications would be compelled to
cease next June 80 and the blame. he
asserted, would rest entirely with the
President. Representative Byrns.
democrat (Tenn.), replied that the
blame would be with Congress for
falling to authorize the continuance
Of the publications.
Representative Sisson (Miss) was
the only democrat to urge that the
veto be voted down. He COMMENDED
that Congress had not exceeded Its
authority in adopting the provision
because of it's constitutional power to
limit eYnenditureS.