Evening star., 1943-04-12
The Veto Power

In the statement explaining his
reasons for permitting the debt in
crease bill and accompanying salary
rider to become law without his sig
nature. the President complained
that Congress had "circumvented"
his power to veto. In ordinary cir
cumstances there would be much
to support this view. Certainly. the
practice Of attaching eXtraneous
riders to important legislation gen.
orally Is an undesirable one. which
may be productive of thoroughly bad
consequences. But in this instance
the use by Congress of the rider
technique was designed to meet a
most unusual condition.
The presidential order limiting
salaries to net of $4,000 a year
was based on authority allegedly
granted by Congress in the Price
Control Act, and was defended by
the President as being within the
intent of Congress. Thus there is
presented question of fact-did
Congress intend to empower the
President to reduce salaries?
Mr.. Roosevelt apparently sticks to
his contention that Congress in
tended to make such a grant of au-
thority, for he speaks of the rider
as taking power from him which had
been granted in the act. But this
Is an attitude which ignores the
effect of the vote in the House and
the Senate on the rider-a vote
which makes it perfectly clear that
Congress never intended to give the
President any power to reduce SAL
aries. Notwithstanding Mr.. Roose-
velt's claims to the contrary.
In these circumstances the alleged
circumvention of the Presidents veto
power assumes a different aspect.
Congress was faced with a situation
In which the President had assumed
a right to exercise a power which
the legislators had not intended to
simply to forbid the enforcement Of
the salary order. the President could
have vetoed it, and it would have
been necessary to muster a two
override the veto. Thus, in effect
the President might have secured
through the vote of one-third of
the members power which the ma
iority in Congress had not intended
to give him in the first instance
Under these conditions. there is much
10 justify the resort by Congress to
the rider technique.
The balance of Mr.. RooSevelt's
statement was devoted to an attempt
to Justify his salary limitation order
on its merits. but his arguments are
neither new nor convincing. In eS-
sence, he contends that the drafting
OF some men and the Stabilizing of
the earnings of others ought to be
accompanied by reduction Of the
salaries Of two or three thousand"
persons with net incomes in excess
of S25 900. He does not contend that
his proposal would increase the Gov
ernment's revenues nor have a direct
effect on imitation. On the contrary.
he leaves the impression that the
proposed reduction of the incomes of
few people was designed to make
wage stabllization more palatable to
the majority, although wages have
gone up considerably and there is
no suggestion Of reducing them.
Despite the Presidents harsh
criticism of Congress, the latter is
on sounder ground in this dispute
1t has empowered Mr. Roosevelt to
prevent increases in salaries beyond
$4,000 net as part of the whole
income stabilization program. This
contemplates that all Americans will
be treated alike instead of penaliz-
ing few for the avowed purpose OF
placating the majority