The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1920-06-18
WILSON vETOES
BUDGET MEASURE
Section Giving Congress Power
to Remove Comptroller Gen.
eraI Held Unconstitutional.
HOUSE FAILS TO OVERRIDE
Will Be Remedied Before Adjourn
ment-Lacks Nine Votes of
Necessary Two-thirds.

WaSlingtOn.-Ine Dill TO eStaDl1Sn q
national budget system was vetoed by
President Wilson. The measure was
held by the President to be unconstitu-
tional because it took from the Chief
executive the power to remove the
controller general and the assistant
controller general, officers who would
be appointed by him with the advice
and consent of the senate.
The President said he returned the
measure without his approval with
the greatest regret" because he was
sin entire sympathy" with its objects.
He added that he returned it at the
earliest possible moment, with the
hope that the Congress may find time
before adjournment to remedy this de-
feet"
The vote came at midnight, and
when the motion to override was de-
feated leaders were undecided what
would be their next move.
President Wilson in his veto mes
sage said:
81 would gladly approve it (the bilD
but for the fact that l regard one of
the provisions contained in section BOB
as unconstitutional. This is the pro-
vision to the effect that the controller
general. and the assistant controller
general, who are to be appointed by
the President with the advice and con-
sent of the senate, may be removed at
any time by a concurrent resolution OF
Congress after notice and hearing,
when in their judgment the controller
general or assistant controller generai
is incapacitated or inefficient, or has
been guilty of neglect of duty, or of
malfeasance of Office, or Of any felony
or conduct involving moral turpitude,
and for no other cause, except either
by impeachment or concurrent reSo-
luton of Congress. 1t has, think, al
ways been the accepted construction OF
the constitution that the power to ap-
point officers of this kind carries with
it, as an incident, the power to remove.
"I am convinced that the Congress
Is without constitutional powers to
limit the appointing power and its in
cident power of removal, derived from
the constitution.
"The section referred to not only
forbids the executive to remove these
officers, but undertakes to empower the
Congress, by concurrent resolution, to
remove an officer appointed by the
President with the advice and consent
of the senate.
81 can find in the constitution no
warrant for the exercise of this power
by the Congress. There is certainly
no expressed authority conferred, and
I am unable 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 clearly
negatived by section 2 of article AI.
That section, after providing that GER
tain enumerated officers, and al. Gill
GERS whose appointments are not other
wise provided for, shall be appointed
by the President, with the advice and
consent of the senate, provides that
Congress may by law vest the appoint
ment of such inferior officers as they
think proper in the President alone,
in the courts of law, or in the heads
of departments.
"It would have been within the con-
stitutional power of the Congress, In
creating these offices, to have vested
the power of appointment in the Presi-
dent alone, in the President with the
advice and consent of the senate, or
even in the head of a department. Re
garding as 1 do the power of renewal
from office as an essential incident to
the appointing power, cannot escape
the conclusion that the vesting of this
power of removal in the Congress is
unconstitutional and therefore am un
able to approve the bill.
81 am returning the bill at the earli'
est possible moment with the hope that
the Congress may find time before ad
journment to remedy this defect"