Evening star., 1940-11-16

IN FeQeral courts
wherever the David Lawrence.
States interest may be involved.
But the question of whether Con-
gress may adjourn without acting
in a vetoed bill may prove even
larger in significance.
tn Constitution uses the word
shall" and not may" in ordering
Congress to consider bill that has
been vetoed by the President. The
exact language is as follows:
Every bill which shall have
passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate shall, before it be-
come a law, be presented to the
President of the United States. If
he approve he shall sign it, but if
not he shall return it, with his OBJ
jections, to that house in which it
shall have originated, who shall
enter the objections at large on their
journal, and proceed to recon-
slider it,
IF after such reconsideration,
two thirds of that house shall agree
to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the
other house, by which it shall like
wise be reconsidered, and if ap-
proved by .two-thirds of that house,
1t shall become a law"
Passed Over Veto by House.
The above constitutes a mandate
upon Congress either to approve or
disapprove a presidential veto, that
is, to take some action. The bill in
question was vetoed on June 10. 1t
was repassed on August S last by
the House by a vote of 253 to As,
which is more than the necessary
two-thirds. The Senate has not yet
acted either to table the bill or to
take it up.
The measure has the support of
the National Association of Attor-
neys General, the president of
which, Lawrence c. Jones of YER
mont, telegraphed Chairman Sum-
ners of the House Judiciary Com
mittee as follows:
Enactment of Satterfield bill is
meritorious and essential to the
preservation of our dual system of
government. The States should be
given the opportunity to present
evidence and argument in all cases
where the constitutionality of
State law is attacked Only under
such procedure can the courts be
intelligently informed and the
States be protected against usurpa-
ton of powers strictly within their
sphere of government"
The foregoing message came after
the presidential veto and it was
influential in persuading the House
to disagree with the President on
the subject. In the veto message.
Mr.. Roosevelt, presumably on the
advice Of the Justice Department.
argued that the bill Invites the
States to intervene as a matter of
right to attack the exercise of any
Federal power impairing or abridg-
ing any governmental power as
serted or exercised by the States or
by any of their agencies, officers or
employees"
Mandatory Provision Wanted.
The President contended that the
courts already have discretionary
power to allow the States to inter-
vene in private suits where consti-
tutional questions affecting State
governments may arise, but it is
pointed out, on the other hand, by
proponents of the bill that the
same discretionary power existed
for years with respect to the right
OF the Federal Government to in
tervene in private suits affecting
Federal laws, and yet the present
administration insisted in 1887 on
seeing that the rule was made man.
datory and not discretionary.
There is large principle involved.
The courts may be filled with men
who are conscientious partisans of
the Federal power as the paramount
1nstrumentality of government and
they will refuse to see the argument
OF the State. But under the pro-
posed legislation, the States are
given the right to intervene as an
authority from Congress itself, and
hence no Judge can keep a State
government out when the trial of
the issues starts.
The President, judging by the veto
message, apparently would have
been willing to sign a measure which
limited Intervention to cases in
which State statutes alone were
affected, but this would not dispose
OF the right of State government
to intervene in private case where
an individual insisted that Federal
power was invading his rights as a
citizen of State whose authority
seemed to be conflicting with that
Of the Federal Government.
Precedent Possible.
Congress, in passing the bill of
Representative Satterf1eld of Vir-
ginia in the first instance, and the
House in voting irrespective of party
TO disregard the veto, has taken a
generous position with regard to the
rights of the States, going back to
the original conception of the Fed
eral judiciary as an arbiter not
merely between the citizen and the
Federal Government, but as be-
tween the Federal and State gov
ernments where the conflict arises
OUT OF issues involving private liti-
gants.
TO grant the request of the State
governments, whose attorneys gen.
eral by overwhelming vote now
plead for day in court where their
interests are affected, is to forward
the cause of democratic government.
but If Congress next week neelects
to act on the bill, either bv annrov-
Ing or disappearing it, it would seem
to be direct violation of a com
stitutional mandate. Such a prec-
edent may furnish an interesting
commentary on the manner in
which fundamental rights are being
neglected.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)
candidate for parliouen& :.