Browning chief. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1941-1953, 1941-02-21
G
mOooo &,
JON N SON
..Gl4c'':::
49, 49, xnias.
INV A.v,0


meaningless WluOOW-OIe6Bluk OuI IL
meets one principal objection Of
those whose only real opposition was
because, in its original form, II al
most completely transferred the
power Of the purse from the con-
gress to the President.
It has been said that no such
power was intended or would ever
be used. So-well, why grant it?
The good faith Of the administration
IN disclaiming any such wide pur-
pose or intent was pretty well evil
denced by permitting the amend
ment limiting the value Of certain
defense articles to be disposed Of
procured from funds heretofore ap-
propriated shall not exceed l,300,-
10000"
OF course, there is no limit on fu.
ture appropriations, but al 70 them
congress still keeps the power of
the purse. The important point il
that without that amendment, the
total field in which this authority
could have been executed might
have exceeded $50, 000, 900, 900. What
is it now?
As to articles procured from
funds heretofore appropriated
guns, planes, ships and the like
clearly it il Is billions Of dollars of
value. But how about that gold
hoard Of billions for example? Was
that procured from funds hereto
fore appropriately"
A similar objection probably ap-
plies to other commodities which
were not procured from funds
heretofore appropriated"-a field
too complex to discuss in this limit
ed space. am informed by some
congressman in charge of the
legislation. that the l.3 billions is a
limitation designed to cover all
these things and il it does not, it
will be made to do so.
II that is done. it would debate
IS per cent of the valid objection
to this bill. 1t is hard to see why
it should not be done. The obscur-
ity as to the true effect of the limi-
tation in this regard is very real
and this is no time for obscurities.
NEW hNOAC YIN LELASE-AEND
Mr.. Arthur Krock's column in the
New York Times recently was more
important than Mr.. Wilkes testi-
mony on the same day, even though
1t will not receive one-tenth the pub
icity.
Arthur, who rarely writes until he
has sifted out the possibilities of err
TOR, cried ''unclean" of the provi-
sion Of the lease-lend bill which ter
inmates the extraordinary powers it
grants the President if and when
congress shall pass a concurrent
resolution quashing them. He says
that, according to constitutional
lawyers, this provision Twas writ in
water on the atmosphere" In other
words, it il a deceptive fake-splen-
didly null.
This is a very serious matter. The
question Is not too technical from
the legalistic angle for lay discus
sion. The central point is this:
without a congressional delegation
OF its own war powers, the Presi-
dent could not possibly exercise
them. Such a delegation can be
made, within flexible constitutional
limits, by a majority vote in both
houses. AS matters now stand, the
very wide proposed powers of the
lease-lend bill could obtain such
majority vote. They could not con-
ceivably obtain two-thirds major
ity vote.
But If they are once granted, &C.
cording to Mr.. Krock's legal advis-
ers. they could never be retaken by
congress over the opposition of the
executive except by a two-thirds
majority.
Mr.. Krock's reason is that the
President, under the Constitution is,
BY his veto and approving power,
part of the law-making machinery,
that while concurrent resolution
Of both houses does not require the
action Of the President, yet, if it
contains . legislative proposition"
it does require full presidential &C
ton under the Constitution.
Concurrent resolutions usually
govern only the business of congress
with no application in the general
statutory sense. The point Of view
1t Mr.. Krock's advisers is that,
since repeating q law is n much q
legislative action in the general
statutory sense rs enacting q law,
No concurrent resolution can repeal
. law excspt subject 10 veto.
Il b q strong point and one never
decided b the courts, but Il Ger.
tntnkY Woul6 b d strange result II