Evening star., 1948-04-28
Services CONTINUING
Traditional Appeals 10
Congress for Funds
Symineton, Who Backed
| Budget, Seen as First
To Revert TO Old System
By David Laurence

congress Will decide what will be
spent for armament--not the Presi-
dent or the Secretary of Defense or
any other unified agency.
This means that each of the
armed services will always 20 to the
court of last resort-Congress-to
persuade that body to spend what
each service says is needed for Sc
curity.
Nearly two years ago, when the
"uniflcation" controversy was at
fever heat, w. Stuart Symington,
who was then Assistant Secretary
for Air In the War Department,
urged that there be single depart
ment and a single budget and that
the decisions as to what each serv-
ice should have should be made by
the single department.
Precedent Important.
This correspondent took issue
then with that concept and pointed
out how dangerous it would be to
have the Director of the Budget or
. single officer in the executive de-
partment make such a decision.
Fortunately for Mr.. Symington. his
view has not prevailed and he is
the first under "uniflcation" to take
advantage Of the historic practice
OF making case to Congress for
the armed service he represents.
The precedent is very important.
II means that when the Army or
the Navy or the Air Force differs
hereafter with the Secretary Of De-
Tense, the argument will be carried
to Congress and that body will de-
eide. Mr.. Symington in his speech
on June II. 1916, before the Eco
nomic Club Of Detroit, said:
"1f there is to be any limitation
on the amount the American tax
payer can afford to put into ma
tional security, however, naturally
that amount available must be
divided up between the Army, Navy
and the Air Force. II one OF the
services gets more than It's share,
obviously another will get less"
Each Makes Own Case.
Mr.. symington fortunately has
dropped that idea. Today he con-
tends that the Navy or the Army
are entitled to whatever they can
get from Congress and there is no
disposition on his part to pare down
what the other services get. This
is logical and proper position. 1t
leaves him free to urge the spending
OF more money for the Air Force no
matter what the other services get.
That's what has always happened
in Congress. Each service makes its
own case and Congress decides as to
what total should be spent.
There may come a time when the
President and the Secretary of
Defense will not give the Navy, for
example. the money 1t believes
necessary for national security. 1t
will be proper then for the Navy
to take its case to Congress and try
to get more appropriations than
the executive branch of the Gov
ernment will have recommended,
1t is important that Congress
SNb MI dN Il 40 VIC 4IlIIb1 TIih JlOIl. I
Heretofore the Budget Bureau has
pared down military requests and
there has been a tendency to gag
the military officers. To the credit
Of Secretary of Defense Forrestal. |
it must be noted that he has not
endeavored to gag the Secretary of
Air or anybody else who wants to
urge military reasons for increasing
the appropriations.
Truman Backs FOrrestal.
In all the present discussion, Of
course, President Truman is in an
embarrassing position because, theo-
retically at least, he is Commander
in Chief Of the Army and Navy
there Is no mention Of the Air Force
In the Constitution. He is also the
head OF the cabinet, and he could
tell the Secretary of Air that he is
going beyond the administrations
recommendations.
But Mr.. Truman isn't doing this.
He Is standing behind the Secre-
tary OF Defense, who takes the
position that all the facts should
be laid before Congress. If that
body wants to spend more billions
for defense and the country ap-
proves of deficit financing and
higher taxes, the responsibility is
on Congress and not on the Execu-
tive who has asked for limited
budget. II, on the other hand, war
breaks out soon, the responsibility
FOR lack of preparedness will be on
the President. So, any one who can
guess whether or not we are a few
months or few years away from
war can tell who Is right in the
present controversy over military
funds.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)