New-York tribune., 1868-04-07
satisfactory guide thus senteu,iOusly sums up the law

sat,sfactory guide thus sententousy sums up the law
q. Of ss a.;.. q Is. . .sHi,h. s
& & ~ 10 s ss S so a q ~ b. 'iss pS S u asS
oth,r formal procscngS" tsiy PsransnU Practice p 20
This statement Is in obvious harmony with that Of
Blackstone So that there Is no dternce between the
writer who guide today and Che learned commen
Mir. May goes still further aud ets us know that it's
only as member OF the House tnst the fruins on'er
Upon points of order the Speaker, per- may ao-
aress me House ent as ms bs oe not often eSer
cise the right" (p 230) A.,
In our own day there have been instances Wng1 Gp %
peer Brougham took his seat on the wo0Isack on tne
2d November $780, before his patent as peer hao peen
made out aud during this interval his energies SUP
pressed while he simply presiding oncer ana hoInns
Sir Edward Sugden who sat as presiding officer on the
ith OF March, 1882 although he WAS 5til commoner anu
II was also the with Sir Frederick IhesgeT VINO sa
presiding officer the LIST OF March, 1885, although ne
was still c0mmoner. These instances attest practcanJ
the prevalence OF the early rule down to our day.
pass from these examples OF recent nsioy ,o au ~
back 10 the rule as known 10 fathers at te ADOPTION
OF the Constitution on this head the evidence Is com
pete it will be found ~ the state Trials OF ESh Sih
and in the books OF law but t s nowhere better e1no
bell himself member OF the House of Lords and Chan
ceor. familiar with it historically ana practically He
has stated the rule and in his work which Is interest
ing as vOminnons he has furnished constantly recur
ring Of tb 2 IN the 70 & to ais work
bell enuneates the rule, which give in his own words:
whether peer the Chancellor j. not like Tie speaker
preside addressed debate be does not the
% who o s 70 be 5 SI S , ne cheer Is 2 % sa % expressed % ~ BY % COZ
Leagues in the Ministry Csnpbels LVes Of Chaneeor vol M
In the early period of English history the chancellors
were often eccesiastics though generally commoners
Fortescue. Wolsey. More were never peers Ths also
the with Sir Nicholas Bacon hes ainer oi Iu
Bacon who held the seals under Queen Elizabeth FOR
twenty years, and the colleague IN the cabinet Oh
Burelgh Lord Campbell thus remarks On his position as
bSing peer eoa take share in the Lords debates
1 sshee s5s4s ose tSsS rs III i vol T. p O
Lord Chancellor Bromley who succeeded Bacon was was
taken i'll during the trial OF Mary Queen OF Scos lang ana
under these circumstances Sir Edmund Anderson, Chef-
Justice OF the Common Pleas was aGthorzeo Dy yrb tne
Queen 10 act substitute for the chancellor Inen
came Sir Christopher HaitOn the fayorlte OF queen
Elizabeth he followed by the exemplary Elesmere,
neither of these heng peers aud then aier mucn eot
and solicitation, Bacon became Chancell0r WIN peer
age but It recorded in the lords journals that he
spoke OF removing from the woolsack " MS seat as
peer thus atestng that he had no voice as presdng
officer During the ChanceOrsip OF Lord Clarendon the
Of the Common Pleas took his place as pre-
siding officer, and upon the disgrace OF Clarendon tne
Orlando Bridgman But Lord Campbell expressly re-
marks that never being created peer his only duty II
dress the two explanation OF the royal will on
the assembling Of Parliament ibid, p 25lJ Here IS a
definition of the term preside employed III our Consuu
Among the others who held the Office OF Lord Keeper
without being immediately raised to the peerage were
Sir John sOuer the polished COwpei, afterward Lord
Cowper and Harcourt, who followed COwper. arcourt
was succeeded Chancellor, by the Chief Justice OF
England who became at Earl OF Macclesfed. Lord
Macceslcld, beng mpeached of high crimes ana nl3de,
Tsrc of he Tomee, Peas rus made Presiding Otcer
OF me Upper House. with only the limited powers be;
longing TO Presiding OFFICER. who Is not member Oi
the body. This is compendiousy described by Lord
Campbell as follows:
h as the t a, he orgn Of tn House OF Peers he regulated the
pocen sny special 1mang to the managers and
their svene Ater verdict gu he orled th. Black Rod
nous demanded Judgment be- 10 good taste ibstaned from max
log commeHi dyy but 'oemn ana sae
i5. iS41ss g. S5sj s'''' tic "'''' '''''' T'''
The conclusion il Irresistible that when our fathers
provided the trial OF the President OF the United
States the Chief Justice shall preside" they used the
term preside" IN tho 1t had already acquired IN
parliamentary law and did not intend to attach 10 any
different sigidcatioH; that they knew perfectly well the
parliamentary distinction between Presiding Omcer
member OF the House. and Presiding Ohcer not mem
be that in constituting the ChiefJustce Presiding Of
cer for special temporary purpose they had ln view
similar instances in the mother country when tne cnet
judicial parsonage of England bad been appointed TO
"preside the House Of Lords OF which he was not
a member as our ChefJusti is not member or the
Senate; that they found in this constantly recurring ex
aIuple apt precedent for their guidance that they
followed this precedent 10 al lntehtS anu Pnposses,
using with regard to the Chief-Justice, the
received parliamentary language that he shall pre-
side" and nothing more; that, according 70 ths preee-
dent they intended 10 linpart To the CherJusce
President pro OF the Senate, any other powers thsn
those OF Presiding Oicer not member OF the body
that these powers, rs exemphhed IN an unDroken
Of instances extending over centuries unoer d
erent kings and through various "ese ere
simply 10 put The question ahd 10 ulgfs suo
by vote To determine any question, preliminary
| lnterlOcutOry or hnal. 4.
In stating this COncluslO present SIMPLY tne result vi
OF the authorities IL is not who speak: 1t IS the author
ties My own Judgment may De imperfect; but here is
OF testimony concurging aud cumulative, WITHOUT
| siugle exception, which cannot err.
Plainly and nmstakably. the provision IN olr Const
on authorizing the ChefJustlce TO 1esids 10 the Sen
ate of which he Il not member was modelled on the
English original This English original was, according u
the language OF Mr. Writ, the "archetype which our
fathers followed. As such IL embodied In our Con-
sttutOn much II the Constitution IN its text ex
pressy provided, that the ChefJusce, when preSdhg
an the Senate had al the powers accorded by Parla
mentary usage such fuctiOnary when pteSidng III
the Upper House Of Parliament without being member
thereof. saying that he shall preside. the COnstt
tou confers the CmefJustce powers OF member
ship ntho Senate and by the wedehned term employed
limits him 70 those precise functions sanctioned at the
time by immemOrlal usage.
Pardon me il prOtract this statement by an additional
nlustratl0u deriye from Congressional history
This will he found under the parallel prov sion OF the
constitution relating the Vice President which. after
much debate IN another generation received an author
tatlve Interpretation. II is as follows The NleePres
OF the United States shall be President OF the sen
ate but shall have vote unless they be equally d
y1ded" I'm other words, the NiccPresdent, like the
Chief Justice shall preside in the senate but unlike the
Chef Justice, WITH casting vote His general powers
are all implied u the provision that he shall preside.