Evening star., 1939-02-12

The battle between President Roose-
velt and the Senate over rejection of a
nominee for the Federal bencl. in Vir-
ginia probably will not settle the 150-
year -old dispute over senatorial courtesy,
but it may drive new wedge into ad-
ministration ranks In that branch of
Congress.
The question of the relative authority
Of the President and the Senate over
appointments, and how far President
should go in following recommendations
of Senators, has given rise to many
notable controversies ever since the days
of George Washington. And it propably
will continue to do so.
The Roberts case in Virginia is likely
to pass into history as just another chap
ter in long, long story, when the volley
of statements subsidies. On the other
hand, it may flare up again as the pres
ent session goes on either in filling the
Virginia judgeship or in other appoint
ments.
Senatorial courtesy, being an unwri.:en
rule, is as hard to define as the horizon
on a foggy day. Nor is it an unbroken
rule. On one occasion the Senate
promptly will reject nominee when a
Senator from the same State arises and
declares the appointment is personally
obnoxious to him, as it did last week,
when, by vote of u to D, it stood by
Senators Glass and Byrd in opposing
confirmation of Floyd H. Roberts to be
Federal Judge for the western district
of Virginia.
Overrode Hollis Objections.
On another occasion it will override
the personal objection of Senator, as
1t did exactly one year ago, when it con-
firmed F. Roy Yoke as internal revenue
collector for West Virginia, a few min
utes after Senator Holt of that State
had announced the appointment was
personally obnoxious" to him.
These two latest cases are not exactly
comparable, however, since the West
Virginia Senators were divided on the
Yoke nomination. Senator Neely was as
vigorous in defense of the nominee as
Senator Holt was in opposition.
Looking back through the records, it
would seem that the varying circum-
stances of each case have determined the
Senate's course. What makes the pres
ent squabble of outstanding interest is
the fact it has stirred up debate over
the meaning of the trainers of the Con-
stitution in providing that presidential
appointments be made by and with the
advice and consent Of the Senate"
In other words, the current case was
not fight over Judge Roberts as an in
dividual. The two Virginia Senators
contended the nomination was part of
an administration plan to give the Gov
ernor of Virginia veto power over the
Senators in the matter Of appointments
and that it is continuation of the purge
move against Senator's.
To Watch Developments.
The rejection of the nomination gives
the first round to the Senate. Interest
centers now in what will happen when
another appointment is made to the
vacancy.
One of the most famous and dramatic
instances occurred in 1881, during the
Garfield administration. when two New
York Senators, Roscoe Conkling and
Thomas c. Platt, resigned in indignation
over the action of the President in max
ing appointments in that State to which
they objected. They went home to seek
vindication by running for reelection to
the seats they had just given up, but
they had guessed wrong. They en-
countered such opposition that Mr.. Platt
dropped out of the race and Mr.. Conkling
was beaten.
Some years later Mr.. Platt returned to
the Senate, and figured in other chap
ters of the story of senatorial courtesy,
during the days of President Theodore
Roosevelt. Mr.. Platt was supporter of
Teddy" and was consulted by the P1esi-
dent on appointments. The President
made it clear, however, that nc was not
relinquishing his right to make the de
cision on nominees. On one occasion
Theodore Roosevelt, in writing to Sen
ator Platt regarding nomination, stated
his view of the subject with the observa-
ton that II fully appreciate the light
and duty Of the Senate to reject or cGr-
firm any appointment according to what
its members conscientiously deem their
duty to be; just as it is my business to
make an appointment which conscien-
tiously think is good one"
Question Rose in 1889.
The question of senatorial courtesy is
generally regarded as having had it's
origin in the very first Congress, in 1853,
when the appointment of naval officer
at the Port of Savannah was turned
down. There were reports it was be-
cause of the opposition of the Georgia
Senators. George Washington let the
Senate know how he felt about it, but
selected another nominee, who was
promptly confirmed.
At that time, and in fact until few
years ago, only meager information was
available as to the reasons prompting le-
lection of nominations. because prior to
1929 the Senate debated and acted on
appointments behind closed doors. On
rare occasions the ban of secrecy was re-
Artillery froonS In addition some mart