Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-12-28
THE ONE TERN PRINCIPLE.


THE ONE TERN PRINCIPLE.
The idea of combining the President to
one term was discussed at the adoption of
the Constitution. The objections to it
were clearly and forcibly stated in one of
the numbers of the Federalist. 1t is not
therefore new s.bject, but one which en-
gagged the earnest attention of the found
ers of our system of government, and was
by them settled.
The writer in the Federaliss says of the
one term principle, Nothing appears
more plausible at first sight, nor more i'll
founded upon close inspection" His OBJ
jections to it are numerous and weighty.
They are as good now as then. His first
objection is that the exclusion from Sec
ond term would be diminution of the in
ducemcnts to good behavior. The in
cumbent feeling that his term of office was
absolutely limited, could hope for no ex-
tension, no matter how well he might per-
form his duties, and thus his motive to
well-doing would be lessened.
Secondly, the effect of exclusion would
be temptation to sordid views, to pecula-
ton, and in some instances to usurpation.
An avaricious man would endeavor to
make the most of his emoluments in the
brief time allotted him; an ambitious one
would be tempted to prolong his power
by nsurpation, when he reflected that no
merit on his part could prevent his de-
scent from Office at the close of his first
term.
Thirdly. the one term principle would
deprive the community OF the experience
gained by the Chief Magistrate in his Of
fee. While we are now aiming to pro-
mote q reform in the civil service, by
which experience and skill in subordinate
positions are considered valuable, and to
be made more secure against short terms
and political changes, there would seem
TO be gross inconsistency in holding ex-
perience in the President as of no account,
as we virtually should by limiting the oc-
cupant to one term. Why should the ex-
perience of a clerk at Washington be
thought worth more to the country than
the experience of President? If limit
alton is best for one, why not for the
otherP
Fourthly, the objection which we urged
in a former article is mentioned, the ban
ishing men from station. in which, in
certain emergencies of the Slate, their
presence might be ofthe greatest moment
to the public safety. This was we'll ex-
emplified in the case of the reelection of
Abraham Lincoln. Had we been COM
PEELED at that critical juncture of national
affairs to select new candidate, and put
an untried man in the Presidential chair,
the difficulties of the national situation
would have been vastly increased, and
the end could not have been foreseen.
This reason is of the gravest Importance.
We should be cautions how we fetter the
popular choice The intelligence of the
people may be trusted to select their own
officers if not government by the people
Is mistake.
The fifth and last objection which the
Federalist presents to the one term prin-
ciple is, that it would operate as con-
stitutional Introduction of stability in the
administration. A necessary change OF
men in the first Office of the nation would
necessitate mutability of measures. Men
seldom are changed and measures remain
Uniform. Things are none too stable while
there is even the possibility and option of
changing. "Nor need we DESIRE" says
the Federalist, ''to prohibit the people
from continuing their confidence where
they think it may be safely placed, and
where by consistency on their part they
may obviate the fatal Inconvenience Of
fuctuating councils and a variable policy"
When the measures of a President are not
satisfactory to the majority OF the people,
they always have limited and undoubtedly
always will limit him to single term by
their voluntary action; but if his policy
is approved and the majority are opposed
to changing it. why bind ourselves so that
we shall be obliged to reject the man and
adopt system of change which is at va
rance with the best judgment of the peo-
pie?
Whatever Congress and the people may
do in relation to Mr.. Summers amend
ment cannot effect the eligibility of Presi-
dent Grant for a second term. Discussion
therefore does not touch his case. SO say
the advocates of the amendment and SO
say we all. The question is left free to be
settled upon its merits. 1t appears that
none favor it except those who are OPP
posed to the reelection OF President Grant,
bnt Of course we are bound to accept their
assertion that opposition to him has moth
ing whatever to do with their position in
favor Of one term. The agitation of the
question furnishes them an excellent OPP