News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
In spite of the sharp protest of Senator Vandenberg the Senate of the United States has voted $57,610,000 on an appropriation which the House had denied. Their explanation was that the President has begun on his own authority relief projects to reclaim land, and these projects could be completed only with additional funds. President Roosevelt had in effect committed the government to large expenditures without so much as consulting Congress. He had, incidentally, committed it to the foolish policy of reclaiming farm land at the same time it is retiring other land from cultivation.
Piquancy is added to the situation by the fact that the President does not have to coerce the Senate in this unsurpation of legislative power; slavery is always more shameful when it is willing rather than forced. And if this were an isolated case, we should merely have to reprove the Senate for letting the executive exceed his authority. But there are other examples of this kind of forced appropriation, and the appropriating power of Congress is in grave danger. Roosevelt plays the same game with the Passamaquoddy project, the Gila Dam, and the Florida ship canal. It is quite clear that Congress is expected to finish whatever the President begins, regardless of whether or not it was worth while in the first place.
The Florida ship canal is a perfect example of this iniquitous scheme. By an expenditure of $5,000,000 for scratching the surface of the State, the Administration has practically committed the government to the expenditure of $200,000,000--the sum necessary to complete the canal. This means that the executive can on his own authority make any appropriations whatsoever, if he can get his hands on a small retaining fee. Jealous of his new money authority, he seems inclined to resent having to share it with Congress. It is hard to interpret otherwise his declaration that seed-bill loans made by him require no additional revenues, but loans made by Congress must be backed up by new taxes. As long as we have a lily-livered Senate and a foolish, and autocratic President neither the liberties of Congress nor of the American people itself can be safe.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.