Evening star., 1935-01-10
LIMITATIONS NOW
CONGRESS ISSUE|
Political Importance In.
voIved in 0eIegating
Power Over Funds.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


There can be no doubt that the
S,,preme Courts 8-to-1 decision has
profoundly affected the lawmakers.
For the question of how far Con-
press can delegate power to the
Executive had never really been passed
upon by the Supreme Court before.
In other words, all the laws dele
eating power in the past have been
upheld Judges in the lower courts,
therefore. have heSitated to declare
anv act of Congress invalid on the
general ground that the legislative
body had no right to pass over Its
functions to another branch OF the
Government.
Now, however. with a pronounce
ment of the Supreme Court stating
that there are limits to the dele
CATION of power. questions will arise
as to whether the spending of money
can be made absolutely within the
discretion of the Chief Executive,
which, in actual practice, means the
thousand and one executive officers
who really administer the laws OF the
land in the name of the President.
Lower Courts Guide.
The lower courts henceforth will
have a general rule to guide them.
And it is apparently not sufficient
lust for a declaration of policy to be
made by Congress. Specific powers,
or, at least, a specific indication OF
the broad limits of policy, will have
to be written into the new laws by
Congress if the Supreme Court Is
to uphold them as constitutional.
The problem of spending public
funds is as old as democracy itself.
The theory has been that the execu-
tive and legislative branches were
either responsible together, as in Great
Britain, or responsible separately, as
under the American Constitution. But
nowhere in the American system has
there been any previous justification
for the granting of power to spend as
the executive branch might decide on
the spur of the moment. During war
time, the executive did, of course,
spend without regard to specific linn
its or particular phrasing Of statute.
but no acts were questioned in the
courts. q.
Control of the budget has long been
the method by which the people,
through their chosen representatives,
have placed a check upon the acts Of
an executive in parliamentary coun-
tries.
The national emergency growing out
of the depression has led Congress to
abandon its practice of crossing every
st" and dotting every 'i" in an ap-
preparation bill. AS a matter of fact,
Congress has in the past exercised SO
much detailed control as to make the
task of administration extremely diff
cult. The cry in recent years, even
before the depression, was that more
business efficiency would be obtained
If Congress bestowed on executive bu-
reaus some discretion.
Specific Use of Funds.
But when Congress virtually abdi-
Gated In favor of the executive de-
partment and passed general grants
for such things as public works"
without defining the term, the eXecu-
tive bureau began to use the money
for everything from raking leaves to
making theoretical studies Of the cost
of coal as contraSted with water power
in generating electricity. If Congress
Wd1IIo QUILL a oGuoy ~ Sdl4 du~
thoriZe it at any time and vote the
funds. But it is questionable whether
the executive bureaus can use public
works money for anything they may
arbitrarily define as public works"
even though their motive is honest and
their purpose is socially beneficial.
The Supreme Court has said, in
deed, that the Congress must be spe-
cific when it issues its instructions to
the executive branch of the Govern
ment, but this, on the other hand,
does not mean that every detail must
be inserted. The limits are recog-
nizable and definable. It is the ab-
Sence of any marking of limits or any
definitions of what Is or is not an ex-
penditure intended by Congress that
is causing considerable discussion to-
day as to the Presidents request for
blanket authority to disburse about
$4,000,000,000 for unemployment re-
lief.
1t Is not difficult nowadays to prove
that almost any expenditure has a
relationship to the employment prob
lem. But it is doubtful if this vague
language is sufficient. Certainly, with
the experience gained in nearly two
years under the New Deal it is argued
that Congress can be more informa-
tive in its instructions to the execu-
tive bureaus as to how it wishes its
policies carried out.
Political Importance.
There is a political Importance to
this subject which might not crop
out Immediately. If Congress grants
q general authority to the executive
department to spend as it pleases,
and if the people disapprove of the
spending on particular items. they
cannot very well hold an individual
Representative or Senator RESPONSE
BILE for the injurious results. But, if
specific paragraphs are included and
member of Congress is recorded as
Tor or against these clauses, the people
have an opportunity to fix the re-
sponsibility in future elections.
The lump-sum idea has many ad-
vantages and, under a benevolent
dictatorship, it may find supporters,
but abdicating the function of de-
flning the limits and purposes Of the
spending of public funds is a prece-
dent, Of course, that could be abused
in times when the purposes were not
beneficial. The Supreme Court has
to consider all angles when it sane
tions a grant of power. A simple
majority vote could transfer the re-
sponsibility or pass the buck" to the
Executive, thus avoiding concrete
expression on various items in an
appropriation bill. The Congress and
the Executive may agree at this ses-
sion on lump sum, but it begins
to look as If some limits or defini-
tions will be inserted for the guidance
Of the executive bureaus.
copyright. 1935.)