The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-28
The House Debate ON the One Term
Creation.

it and the vote on it are noteworthy in several
respects. In the first place, proposition of
this kind, coming into the House with the
sanction of its Judiciary Committee and re-
ceiy.ng majority of votes, including all the
democrats present and forty-seven rerubli-
cans attests the strong hold which the third
term apprehensions have taken on the public
mind. Although such an amendment would
be eminently proper in ITSELF without regard
to President Grants aspirations, there can be
no doubt that it is offered at the present time
in consequence Of the third term discussions
of the last two years. In the second
place, it is now made evident that there is
large section of the republican party who
share the prevailing fears in respect to Presi-
| dent Grants intentions, and feel the necessity
of erecting a barrier against that officers
irregular and exorbitant ambition. In the
third place, the democratic party, through its
representatives in Congress, has pledged itself
to change in the constitution which was
urgently recommended by President jackson
in every one of his annual messages; and
although the amendment is defeated just now
the party has given virtual pledge to submit
it TO the States for ratification as soon as 1T
becomes strong enough in Congress. The
people will note this implied pledge and hold
the democratic party responsible tor its fulfil
ment at the earliest day whenit becomes prac-
ticable. This is not success, but it is good
beginning.
The amendment, in the form in which it
came from the Judiciary Committee, is in the
right direction, but it is not quite the right
measure. The proposed extension Of the
term to six years was not wise. 1t is too
literal copy Of the corresponding article in
the Confederate constitution. If the length
of the term is to be changed at all we would
sooner see it reduced TO two years than ex-
tended to six In that case the Executive
would always be in harmony in this country,
as it always is in England, with the popular
branch of the national legislature. In Great
! Britain this harmony is deemed fundamental,
no Ministry remaining in Office any longer
than it is supported by majority of the
House of Commons 1t is always a misfor-
tune for Congress and the President
to be in collision. They are
alike agents of the people, and there
is an absurdity in the same prin-
cipal having TWO sets of agents acting on
conflicting instructions given at different
times. The two stormicst and most unproft-
able administrations we have ever had were
those of John Tyler and Andrew Johnson,
who had to confront hostile Congress. We
do not recommend o reduction of the term to
two years, but we would prefer this to its ex-
tension to six. We ore content that it should
for second term. Every argument for
frightening the term is unsound and falla-
cious. The idea that it is essential to
stability in public measures is nom
sense. The policy of the government
on every important subject is determined
by Congress, it being the duty of the Presi-
dent to enforce the laws which Congress may
have passed and only Congress can repeal.
In England the Ministry, which is the respon-
sible executive, is changed as often as the
majority changes in the House Of Commons,
without any detriment to useful stability in
the government The heat of our Presidential
elections would be increased in proportion as
the prize was rendered more valuable by
leng.hening the tenure of the Office. We pre-
fer four years, because that term has been so
long established, and it is better not to make
changes until they are called for by some
urgent public necessity But if there were to
be change at all we should advocate reduc-
ton of the term to two years, as being not
only more accordant with republican princi-
pies, but with sound ideas OF government, as
accepted and practised by our British kindred.
We stand, however, by the four years, and
protest against the extension of the term to
six, even as compromise for securing ineligi-
bility second time.
We do not quite like the amendment offered
by Mr. Potter in another respect. 1t ought
to take effect at once soon as it is ratified
by the States 1t is SO drawn-for the pur-
pose, we suppose of securing republican
votes-as not to forbid another recollection Of
President Grant, and to give him six-years'
tenure for his third term if he should achieve
it. We have no faith in such trimming ex-
pedIencies. We should be unwilling to pur-
chase the amendment at so heavy a price as
six years more of General Grant after the ex-
piration of his second term. What guarantee
can there be that we should ever have another
Presidential election if Grant were to remain
in Office for eight years from the 4th of next
March? But we suppose the idea was that,
after the people had ratified a one-term
amendment, they would never consent to
Grants reelection. In logic and consistency
this ought, indeed, to be the effect; but
Grant himself would be more likely to inter-
pref it as an exceptional permission than as a
prohibition if he could prevail on his army of
office-holders to accept that view.
The defects we have noticed attracted little
attention in the debate, which was chiefly
/ confined to the central question of limiting
the President to one term. AS the measure