Evening star., 1939-02-08
Text of Roosevelt Letter
Critieizing Roberts Rejection, He Says
individuals Have No Veto Power

IS Rejection, He Says
No Veto Power
| ter had not been a direct issue since
1918.
Cites Roberts Backers.
At a special meeting of the full
Committee on the Judiciary, and be-
fore the committee went into execu-
tive session, attention was invited
to the presence Of the Governor Of
Virginia, to the presence Of two for
mer Governors of Virginia, and to
the presence Of the nominee and
his counsel.
After lengthy discussion the COM
mittee went into executive session,
reopening the doors an hour later.
The record shows that at this time
the committee heard the Governor
of Virginia In favor Of the nominee
and also former Gov. E. Lee Trinkle
and former Gov. Westmoreland Da-
Wis: also, George M. Warren, esq,
counsel for nominee. Thereupon the
committee, instead Of hearing other
witnesses in behalf of the nominee,
many Of whom were present, moved
that a list of these further witnesses
be incorporated in the record with
out hearing them. The committee
also agreed to receive certain let
ters and editorials in behalf of the
nominee, and, finally, record Of
designations you have received from
former Governors Of Virginia to sit
in other judicial districts, this list
including many designations of you
made by former Gov. Harry F.. Byrd.
That was followed by your own
testimony.
Senators Close Argument.
The privilege Of making the clos
ing and sole arguments against you
was accorded to the two Senators
from Virginia.
Senator Glass stated that neither
he nor his colleague had formally
or definitely made any statement
affecting your capabilities.
He proceeded to review the news
paper reports Of last March, stated
that he had not communicated with
the Governor to ascertain whether
or not the latter had authorized the
publication, and spoke of his letter
to me. He went on to state that the
President had not answered his
question up to this date, except by
sending the nomination to the
Senate.
You will recognize from what I
have written you that as far back
as last March, in reply to Senator
Glass letters, I told him categori-
cally that I never answered any
questions relating to the credibility
or otherwise Of newspaper articles
or editorials, and I asked him to
forget the newspaper article alto
gether. Therefore, the statement
Of Senator Glass to the Committee
does not square with the facts.
Blames Glass "Anger."
Continuing, the senior Senator
from Virginia referred to other
newspaper articles which spoke of
"rebukes" to the Senators. It is al
most needless for me to suggest that
neither you nor pay any attention
to such excuses. Finally, Senator
Glass stated "as a matter of fact,
the President Of the United States
did give to the Governor Of Vir-
ginia the veto power over nomina-
tions made by the two Virginia
| United States Senator'S" I am sorry,
in view of my long personal friend
ship for the senior Senator, that
he has made any such statement,
and I can only excuse it on the
ground of anger or forgetfulness
At the end of his speech Senator
Glass says "Mr. Cummings never
had the slightest idea of giving con-
sideration to the recommendations
Of the two Virginia Senators because
the Governor Of Virginia had been
promised the right Of veto on nom
nations that they had made.
Neither Of these statements is true.
Senator Glass was followed by
Senator Byrd, who stated that your
nomination was personally offensive
to both Senators, In fact, person
ally obnoxious.
Glass Is Mistaken.
At the very close of the Judiciary
Committee hearing Gov. Price
stated, Senator Glass has made a
charge against me. He Is entirely
mistaken about it," The Governor
further stated that he was not In
volved in the newspaper story.
The committee thereupon abrupt
ly closed the hearing and went into
executive session, with the result,
as you know, that your nomination
was reported adversely to the
Senate.
This brief history repeats several
episodes in the history of the United
States, which have occurred from
time to time during the past $50
years. In other cases nominations
by former Presidents Of men of out
standing ability and character have
been denied confirmation by the
Senate. not on the plea that they
were untitled for Office, but on the
sole ground that they were per-
sonally obnoxious to the Senator or
Senators from the State from which
they came
During this whole period Presi-
dents have recognized that the con-
stitutional procedure Is for a Presi-
dent to receive advice, i.e., recon-
mendations, from Senators.
Presidents have also properly re-
ceived advice, i.e, recommendations,
from such other sources as they
saw fit.
Thereupon Presidents have de-
cided on nominations in accordance
with their best judgment-and in
most cases basing their judgment
on the character and ability of the
nominee. In many cases, of course,
the recommendations of Senators
have been followed, but in many