Evening star., 1932-05-19

Unanimous action of the United
States Supreme Court in refusing to
approve the Senate's attempt to rtcall
the appointment of George Otis Smith
as head of the Federal Power Commts-
sion meets with the general commenda-
ton of the public. It Is held that the
Upper Branch OF Congress was en-
croaching upon the powers Of the Ex..
ecutive. and that anv other solution OF
the controversy would have been enn-
barrassing to the President and produce
too much uncertainty. The Senate rule
provides that 1t may reconsider NOM
ination within two session days and its
claim of the right to recall in this case
was based on the fact that. although IA
days had intervened. the Senate had
been in recess for all except two days.
The reason for the Senate's attempt to
annul the appointment was the disr1is-
sal Of certain employees OF the commits
sion.
"There is logic in the Senate's stand, "
thinks the Haverhill Gazette. but not
enough to Justify making Federal ap-
pointees subject to two masters who, as
likely as otherwise, will have sharply
different ideas as to how their work
should be done" The Indianapolis
News feels that "the Supreme Court
saved the Executive Department the
risk of having to bow to the Senate"
and that the decision seems to be
wholly supported by the rule Of prac-
tical necessity under which men op-
crate in the orderly conduct of govern
ment or any other activity calling for
order. discipline and fair division OF
powers The Buffalo Evening News
~. gt- nr~EINf VA
toing the Senate's ambition to become
an executive, rather than a consulta-
tive branch" and declares that it very
logically holds that this would be re-
moval of an official and beyond the
Senateis power"
eff the Senate were able to do this" ="
in the opinion of the Lincoln State
journal. cit would be able to recall, at
anv time. any person holding an ap-
pointive Office for which confirmation
is necessary; that "the court holds
that the Senate was not granted this
power: in other words. the President
and not the Senate is the Executive
force of the United States" The Sen
Francisco Chronicle agrees that the
Senate cannot, by its own action, en-
large its powers over Federal Office
holder bevond the limit set by the Con-
stitution." Recalling that "some months
ago the court upheld the right of the
President to remove without consent
Of the Senate an officer of the Govern
ment who had been named by the
President and who had to be confirmed
by the Senate. the Scranton Times
points out that this is the second time
that the Senate has been defeated be-
fore the Citprayoa Co,,rf ~
"All hands should welcome. In this
day Of multiplied controversies as
serts the New Orleans -Picayune,
IAN adjudication thai permo nently dis
poses of one among the many. But a
lot of folks. meanwhile had forgotten
or half f-rgotten the quarrel over
Power liSSion nomk ations that
challenge national attention a year
ago Time and events have showed it
into the remote background. branding
it far less important than it seemed at
its start" With the feeling that lit was
curious Illustration of Senate petu-
lancy." the Columbus Ohio State Jour-
nal AYERS that when the Senators
sought, by appealing to the Supreme
Court. to establish far-reaching con-
troll over executive appointments the
court held that all Senate authority
over an appointee ends when conf1rnla-
ton has been voted"
X
THE Supreme Court" remarks the
Providence Bulletin. while admitting
that it is a serious and delicate exer-
else of judicial power to construe
Senate rules differently from that body
itself nevertheless is confirmed in its
view by the fact that since the at
tempted reconsideration of Smiths
confirmation the Senate itself seems
to have treated the ordering Of i'm
mediate notification to the President
as tantamount to authorizing him to
proceed to perfect the appointment.
In other w6sds, the President need not
wait until the expiration of the time
limit sst by the Senate. but can pro-