The Concordia sentinel. (Vidalia, Concordia Parish, La.) 1882-current, 1920-06-12
WILSON VETOES
THE BUDGET Bull
PRESIDENT or OPINION 1T TAKES
AUTHORITY FROM ExEcu-
TIVE DEPARTMENT,
HOUSE FAILS TO OVERRIDE.
Chief Executive in Sympathy With
General Purpose of Measure, but
Part of 1t Conflicts with
Constitution.

Washington.-Pre Wilson We
toed the bill establishing a national
budget system and an unsuccessful at
tempt was made in the house to pass
the measure over his veto.
Notifying congress that he was re-
turning the bill without his signature,
President Wilson in his veto message
said:
81 do this with the greatest regret.
l am in entire sympathy with the OBJ
jects of this bill and would gladly
approve it, but for the fact that l
regard one of the provisions con-
tanned in section 1903 as unconstitu-
tional. This is the provision to the
effect that the comptroller general
and the assistant comptroller general,
who are to be appointed by the pres
ident, with the advice and consent
of the senate, may be removed at any
time by a concurrent resolution OF
congress after notice and hearing,
when in their Judgment the comptroi-
Ter general or assistant comptroller
general is incapacitated or inefflclent
or has been guilty of neglect OF duty,
mr. of malfeasance of office or Of any
felony or conduct involving moral
turpitude. The effect of this is to
prevent the removal of these OFFICERS
for any cause except either by I'M
parchment or a concurrent resolu-
ton of congress. 1t has, | think, al
WAYS been the accepted construction
of the constitution that the power TO
appoint officers of this kind carried
with it, as an incident, the power 10
remove. i am convinced that the
congress is without constitutional
powers to limit the appointing power
and its incident power of removal de-
rived from the constitution.
1.-THE section referred to not only
forbids the executive to remove these
officers, but undertakes to empower
the congress by a concurrent resolR
ton to remoye any officer appointed
by the president with the advice and
consent Of the senate. / can flno IN
the constitution no warrant for the
exercise of this lower by the con-
| gress. There is certainly no ex-
pressed authority conferred and am
,nable to see that authority for the
! exercise Of this power is implied IN
any expressed grant of power. On the
contrary, think its exercise Is clear
" negatiyed by section two of article
II. That section, after providing that
certain enumerated officers and all
officers whose appointment is mol
otherwise provided for shall be ap
pointed by the president with the ad'
vice and consent OF the senate, pro
4 yides that congress may by law In
vest the appointment of such inferior
officers as they think proper in the
president alone, in the course of law
or in the heads Of departments. II
would have been within the constitu
tionaI power of the congress in ere
eting these offices to have vested the
power of appointment in the president
alone. in the president with the advice
and consent of the senate, or even II
the head of a department. Regarding
as | do the power of removal from
office as an essential incident to tbs
appointing power, I cannot escape the
conclusion that the vesting of this
power of removal in the congress Il
unconstitutional, and therefore l an
unable to approve the bill.
81 am returning the bill the earlies
possible moment with the hope tina
the congress may find time before
adjournment to remedy this defect"