Show GENERAL HUGH S JOHNSON washington D 0 wa WINDOW NI OW DRESSING the lease lend bill as it passed tho the house a mended amended carries carrie S a lot ot of menn meaningless ingle ss window dressing but it meets ono one principal objection ot of those whose only real opposition was because in its original form it al most moat completely transferred the power of ilia purse from the congress to the president it has been said that no such power was intended or would ever bo be used so well why grant it the good faith of the administration in disclaiming any such wide purpose or intent was pretty well evidenced by permitting tho the amendment limiting tho the value of certain defense articles to be disposed of procured from funds heretofore appropriated pro printed shall not exceed 1 of course there Is no limit on future appropriations but as to them congress still keeps the power ot of tho the purse the important point la Is that without that amendment the total held field in which this authority could have been executed might have exec exceeded ceded what Is it now As to procured from funds heretofore appropriated guns planes ships and the like clearly it Is 13 billions of dollars of value but how about that gold hoard of at billions for example was that procured from funds heretofore appropriated A similar objection probably applies to other commodities which were not procured from funds heretofore a field too complex to discuss in this limited space I 1 am informed by some congressmen in charge of the legislation that tho ilia 13 billions Is a limitation designed to cover nil all these things and if it does docs not it will wh bo be mado made to do so if that Is ii done it would deflate 75 per cent of 0 the valid objection to this bill it Is hard to see sea why it should not be ba done the obscurity as to tho the true effect of the limitation in this regard Is very real and this Is no time for obscurities NEW ANGLE ON LEASE LEND mr arthur brocks column in the new york times recently was more important than mr Will kles festl mony many on the same day even though it will not recene receive one tenth the pub lacity arthur who bardy writes until he has sifted out tho the possibilities of error cried unclean of the provision of the lease tend lend bill which terminates the extraordinary powers it grants the president if and when congress shall pass a concurrent resolution quashing them ile ho says that according to constitutional lawyers this provision was writ in war on the atmosphere in other words it is a deceptive fake splendidly null this is a very serious matter the question is not to too technical from the legalistic angle for lay discussion tho the central point Is this without a congressional delegation of its own war powers the president 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 a 8 majority vote they could not conceivably ceiva celva bly obtain a two thirds majority vote but if they are once granted according to mr brocks legal advisers they could never bo be retaken by congress over the opposition ot of the executive except by a two thirds majority mr brocks reason is that the president under the constitution Is by his veto and approving power a part of the lawmaking law making machinery that while a concurrent resolution of both houses does not require the action of the president yet if it contains a legislative proposition it does docs require full presidential be ac tion under the constitution concurrent resolutions usually govern only the business of congress with no application irl in the general statutory sense the point of view of mr brocks advisers Is that since repealing a law is as much a legislative action in the general statutory sense as enacting a law no concurrent resolution can repeal a H law except subject to veto it Is a strong point and one never decided by the courts but it certainly would be a strange result if congress can in part suspend the constitution by a majority vote but cant restore it by less than a two thirds majority when the constitution itself provides that an amendment may not even be proposed a 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 condition what it grants it can put a time limit on oil it and thus work its repeal without any legislation whatever it can make it depend on any contingency tin gency it likes such as some administrative finding of fact or future conditions of time tide and weather it if those conditions do not occur it does not speak it speaks while they continue it becomes silent when they cease regardless of presidential veto power and with tio no new vote |