Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-02-12
BY HUGH =. JOHNSON


BY HUGH :. JOHNSON
MIR. ARTHUR KROCKS col
vi umn in the New York Times
Tuesday was more important
than Mr.. Wilkes testimony
that day. even though it W,
not receive one-tenth the pub
licity.
Mr.. Krock's effort was to
analyze the pending lease-lend
measure on a point of vital i'm
portance.
Mr.. Wilkes obvious point
observation-disclosures ap-to- give
away more of our navy. In
support OF this. he advanced
points about world military and
economic strategy that required
no highly publicized trip to
Europe TO devise. They have
all been made and argued here
for six weeks.
Mr.. Krock's presentation was
new.
4 RTHUR. who rarely writes
until he has Slfted- out he
possibilities of error. cried
"unclean' of the provision of
the lease-lend bill which termi-
mates the extraordinary powers
II grants the President if and
when Congress shall pass a con-
current resolution quasi ing
them.
He says that. according TO
constitutional lawyers. this pro-
vision was writ in water on the
atmosphere"
In other words. IT is a deccp-
tive fake -splendidly null.
This Is very serious matter.
The question is not too technical
from the legalistie angle fer lay
discussion. The central point is
this: Without a congressional
delegation of its own war
powers, the President could not
possibly -exerei1e- them.
OUCH a delegation can be
~ made, within flexible con-
stitutional limits. by a majority
vote in both houses. As matters
now stand. the very wide pro-
posed powers of the lease-lend
bill could obtain such a majority
vote. They could not conceiv-
ably obtain two-thirds ma
jority vote.
But if they arc once granted.
according to Mr. Krock'S legal
advisers, they could never be
rctaken by Congress over the
opposition of the Executive cX-
cept by two-thirdS majority.
Mr.. krock s reason is that the
President. under the Constitu-
ton is, by his veto and approx
ing power, a part of the
law-making machinery. { h (
while a concurrent resolution of
both houses. does not require
the action of the President. yet,
If il contains legislative
proposition ii does require full
presidential action under the
Constitution.
Concurrent resolutions usually
govern statuatory sense. The
point of view of Mr.. Krock's
advisers IS that. since repeating
a law is as much a legislative
action in the general statutory
sense. as cnacting a law. no
concurrent resolution can repeal
a law except subject to the
Presidents veto
IT Is strong point and one
never decided by the courts,
but il certainly would be a
strange result if Congress can,
in part, suspend the Constitu-
ton by a majority vote but
can't restore it by less than a
two-thirds majority, when the
Constitution itself provides that
an amendment may not even be
proposed except by a two thirds
majority ratified by three
fourthS of the states.
The contrary view is that
whenever Congress grants an
extraordinary power. it can con-
dltion what if grants.
II can put time-limit on il
and thus work its repeal without
any legislation whatever. II can
make II depend on any con-
tlngency il likes, such as some
administrative finding of fact or
future conditions OF time. tide
and weather. If those condi-
tons do not occur, it does not
speak. 1t speaks while they
continue
Distributed By United Features snyd. Inc.