Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-06-05

meng. DAua bsHfehees
"The people have elected a Re-
publican majority to the Senate and
to the House Of Representatives.
Under our Constitution, the Con-
gress is the law-making body. The
people have chosen to entrust the
controlling voice in this branch OF
our Government to the Republican
Party. I accept this verdict In the
spirit in which all good citizens &C
cept the result of any fair election u
The Republican majority, aided
materially by Democratic votes, has
sent to the White House bill to
reduce taxes and next week the
President will receive for action
q bill to regulate labor management
relations. ;. These two measures re-
fleet the wishes of a preponderant
number of members Of both houses
of Congress, irrespective Of party.
What Would Veto Mean?
II President Truman vetoes either
of these important measures, will 1t
not mean that he is interposing his
constitutional right of veto to thwart
the will of the majority which is
very close to two-thirds? viii it
not mean that any legislation OPP
posed by the President will, for the
years 1947 and 1913, require virtual
unanimity-that is, more than two
thirds in both houses?
Mr.. Truman has 1t within his
power to stagnate the legislative
situation until the issue Is decided
in the elections Of 1913 and a new
Congress takes Office in January,
1949. In an era in which stream
lining" is urged and in which Con-
gress itself has been reorganized to
do business more expeditiously, the
question arises whether the exercise
by Mr.. Truman Of his right of veto
will not dramatic the conspicuous
weakness in Americas constitutional
systematic extraordinary power
vested in one man to oppose the will
OF nearly two-thirds Of the legH-
lators Of both houses.
In Canada and in Australia, In
South Africa and In other units of
the British Commonwealth, democ-
racy means the right Of the majority
to rule. Overnight, if a prime min
lister thwarts the will of a majority,
a test Is forced. Either he resigns or
the issue. Is carried to the people.
But in either case, action is instan-
taneous. The people do not have to
wait for four years or, in this case,
nearly two years to get an executive
to heed the wishes of the legislative
body.
Arguments For Change.
There are many good arguments
for and against such constitutional
change in America. The principal
one against it is that American
Presidents are as a rule responsive
to public opinion and not usually
men of stubbornness or caprice who
veto bills for selfish political reasons
or as q part Of a political maneuver
to advance their own political for
tunes.
President Truman is up against a
real tess Of the proper Use OF the
veto power. The discussion for sew
eral days in Washington indicates
that the1 President Is considering
politics only and not the merits of
the measures or the fact that the
American people in the last election
showed dissatisfaction with the
many years of spending and special
privilege that preceded the present
administration.
If the President yields to politics
In the exercise Of his veto, the issue
Of the veto power will take on new
Importance. If he goes along with
the wishes of Congress, it will be
evident that the President Is main
tanning the letter as we'll as the
spirit Of his promise of cooperation
made last November. If one man, on
the other hand, can nullify the
wishes of the people as expressed in
a congressional election, the way will
be opened for some form of consti-
tutional reform.
There may be many who will not
agree that 1t is wise to adopt the
parliamentary system. but certainly
there could be less objection to a
system which either made the tenure
of the President two years with
eligibility for reelection to a total Of
eight years or which made the terms
Of both Senators and Representa-
tives four years so as to coincide
with the presidential tenure.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.l