OCR Text |
Show LENGTH OF PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGES. MES-SAGES. Says the Chicago Tribune: There is no reason why the message should be an annual review of events. No requirements require-ments of the Constitution or of oommon sense need make it long or exhaustive. The President has more than one chance every year to make himself heard. He may send in to Congress as many messages as he desires, de-sires, and no one in law is more "special" than the other. Neither is there any requirement in the Constitution that the President's Message shall be terse. The American people have become accustomed to lengthy messages mes-sages and they look to these messages as a sort of blue book, and for this reason they uncomplainingly . tolerate their j great length. It is desirable to know what the views of the President are upon any question, and these views are very properly expressed in messages. The President's message is the very antipodes of the Queen's speech. In the United States the President introduces no measures, meas-ures, but has a power of veto over them. In England the Government introduces all bills, while to the House and Lords belongs the veto power. The field of pos- i itive legislative action is always more confined con-fined than the field of negation. Those who have charge of introducing bills and carrying them through are more reticent as to cheir intentions than those who merely approve or disapprove them. The complaint in England is that the Queen's speech is too short and indefinite, while the complaint in this country is that the Presidents' messages are too long. Presidential Presi-dential messages could be made much shorter than they are and the recommendations recom-mendations more specific and to the point than they are, and this would give to the messages greater strength no doubt, but so long as the people look upon Presidential Presiden-tial messages in the light they do there is no likelihood of their being shortened . |