Original purto protect

pose of veto

executive and prevent hasty

of veto

second, to prevent ill-advised and hasty legislation. Down to 1860 the vetoes, less than fifty in number, were generally upon constitutional grounds, although from the administration of Jackson, vetoes because of expediency were not uncommon. But legislation the executive, except in the days of the reconstruction controversy, seldom needed protection. The Civil War settled many constitutional questions and gave the government many powers which were formerly in dispute. With this constitutional change the use of the veto was also changed. It is now generally conceded Present use that the president vetoes a measure which he thinks objectionable either in principle or probable results. Questions of constitutionality are secondary to those of expediency. The veto has not been used frequently, considering the mul- veto not used titude of bills presented to the president. Down to 1889 out of 22,650 bills, acts, and joint resolutions which Congress had presented since the organization of the government, the president had signed 21,759 and vetoed 433.1 Of these, Cleveland alone vetoed over half, chiefly private pension bills. Congress has passed thirty-two bills over the president's veto, fifteen of which were in the administration of Johnson. Seven presidents2 did not use the veto. To date, the veto power has probably been used less than six hundred times.

frequently

passed over

The use of the veto has generally met with approval. The Bills seldom president has frequently better interpreted the public demand president's than has Congress, and the people have occasionally welcomed veto protection from their own elected representatives. It has limited to some extent unwise extravagance and has prevented the passage of some legislation which from its character might never be tested in the courts. It has been used with discretion by the president, as is shown by the fact that only rarely has Congress succeeded in overriding the president's objections.3

1 E. C. Mason, The Veto Power, Appendix D. See also J. H. Finley and J. F. Sanderson, The American Executive and Executive Methods, pp. 72-81, 206-217; C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 201-204.

2 John Adams, Jefferson, J. Q. Adams, William H. Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, and Garfield.

The first instance occurred in Tyler's administration; Pierce was reversed 5 times; Johnson, 15; Grant, 4; Hayes, 1; Arthur, 1; Cleveland, 2; Taft, 2; Wilson, 2.-E. C. Mason, The Veto Power, Appendix D

In recent administrations presidents, by letting Congress know that they would veto an act unless altered to their satisfaction, have succeeded in writing their ideas into legislation in ways perhaps not contemplated by the Constitution. But this is only an illustration of the changed position of the executive and an example of his position as the leader of his party.

CHAPTER IX

THE ADMINISTRATION

THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET 1

The cabinet states unlike

in the United

the English

and French

Technically, the term "the administration" in American government includes the president and the heads of the departments comprised in the informal body known as the cabinet. The meaning of the term "cabinet” in the United States differs from that cabinets in other countries. In England, France, and the self-governing colonies of Great Britain the cabinet is a body of officials, nominally appointed by the head of the State, but actually responsible to and holding office by the consent of the legislature. Like cabinets in other countries the cabinet in the United States is composed of holders of offices which are created by the legislature. These officers are also appointed by the president. But unlike the cabinets of all other countries the cabinet officers in the United States have no political responsibility to the legislature. They are not even indirectly chosen by it, and, save in so far as the Senate consents to the nominations of the president, they have no responsibility to the legislature but are solely responsible for all their discretionary acts to the president. Although the theory of the separation of departments is held in other countries, the parliamentary system, by which a cabinet, controlled by the legislature, directs and performs all executive acts, has resulted in the supremacy of the legislature. This is not so in the United States. The cabinet in the United States is not a cabinet in the European parliamentary sense, but merely a group of officials subordinate to the chief executive, who is charged with executing the laws of the United States. Congress can by legislation control and decide what shall be done, but not how it shall be done that is the essence of the discretionary or political power of the executive, over which Congress has no control.

1 See H. B. Learned, The President's Cabinet; M. L. Hinsdale, A History of the President's Cabinet.

In the United cabinet is a body of

States the

officials re

sponsible to the president

Origin of the cabinet in the

In the convention of 1787 it was several times proposed that United States the president should be given a council analogous to the Privy Council in England; but these suggestions were fortunately abandoned. Nevertheless, in the Constitution as it came from the framers there were two points from which such an advisory council might have developed. The first was the Senate, which with the president shared the executive power in making treaties and confirming appointments. But the early experience of Washington and the difficulties he encountered in dealing with that body checked the development along that line. A second and more likely element from which an advisory council might have developed was the heads of the executive departments. As has been shown, the power to create such departments was given to Congress, and the necessity of those close relations to the president was recognized by the provision that he might require their opinions. But it was left entirely to his discretion as to the form these relations should take, whether by formal reports, or whether the heads of the departments should sustain more intimate relations to their chief. The cabinet as council, that is, as a body of intimate, trusted political advisers, was not established by the Constitution, but owes its existence to unwritten law and custom.1

Constitu

tional provi

sions for the

formation of

the cabinet

Growth of departments

The constitutional provisions for the powers from which the cabinet has developed are found in the general grant of the executive power to the president,2 and the power expressly granted to him to consult the heads of the executive departments; while the fact that such departments are to be created is implied from the last quoted clause and also from the power given to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.1

Acting on this authority, Congress, at its first session in 1789, passed statutes creating three executive departments: the Department of Foreign Affairs (which was soon to become the Department of State), the Department of War, and the Treasury

1 M. L. Hinsdale, A History of the President's Cabinet, pp. 7-8.

2 The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Sect. i.

3 Ibid. Article II, Sect. ii, clause 1. 4 Ibid. Article I, Sect. vii, clause 18.

Department. A little later it created the office of AttorneyGeneral, which was organized as the Department of Justice in 1870. This process of congressional creation and division has continued until to-day there are ten principal departments.

departments

Members of from party of

cabinet are

the president

The chief officers of the three earliest departments, together Heads of with the Attorney-General, were consulted by Washington, and in become the 1793 were known unofficially as the cabinet, a title which was not cabinet recognized by law until 1907.1 The precedent established by Washington has been followed ever since, with the exception of a short period during the administration of Jackson, when he consulted other advisers than the heads of the departments. In recent years cabinet meetings have been held twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday, which are known in Washington as "Cabinet Days." "2 The principles governing the selection of the cabinet reflect the dual position of that body. The officials must be able to administer the affairs of the departments over which they preside; but they must also be suitable advisers for the president in the important policies of his administration. The first principle which has been followed ever since Washington's second administration is that the cabinet officers must come from the same political party. The blurring of party lines, or the disintegration of parties, has produced a few exceptions, notably in the Exceptions administrations of Monroe, Tyler, and Lincoln, and certain cases of independence of party allegiance have accounted for some individual appointments. The appointment of Gresham as Secretary of State in 1893, after he had been a member of Arthur's cabinet and a strong candidate for the Republican nomination in 1888, is the most remarkable instance. In recent years, however, the claim of the Republican party to be a truly national one led both President Roosevelt and President Taft to include in their cabinets Southern Democrats for brief periods.

1 H. B. Learned, The President's Cabinet, pp. 157-158.

2 Twice during the administrations of President Wilson it has been reported that the formal cabinet meetings were discontinued. This was probably for other reasons than those which actuated Jackson, for there is little evidence that President Wilson has preferred other advisers to the heads of departments, although he has freely consulted a large number of unofficial advisers. It is more probable that the complications of the war could best be handled by private conferences with the heads of the departments concerned.