National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-10-08
Population Of i6e National CspitaI. -lSO,OOI
Prcccdcnts or thc sennte.

Prccedents OF thc Senate.
The Constitution guarantees TO each
State equal suffrage IN the Senate with
every other State.
A statute requires that the oath shall be
administered to Senators by the President
of the Senate.
The Senate has now no President, and
there are three new Senators to be sworn
in-two from New York and one from
Rhode Island.
The Democrats have three majority un-
il the new Senators are sworn in.
There is no reason TO believe that any
Senator would Willingly deny any State
is right of equal representation.
The constitutional provision and the
statute above referred TO can both be
respected without innovation upon the
lsages or departure from the precedents
Of the Senate.
On the 9th day of April, 1889, John
Langdon, a Senator from New Hampshire,
was chosen President of the Senate for
he sole purpose Of opening and counting
the vote for President and Vice-President
of the United States" and, that duty
being performed, he ceased to be Presi-
dent ofthe Senate by virtue of that cleo
ton.
On the 9th Of December, 1854, "Mr
Hunter moved that General Cass, of
Michigan, be requested to act as Presi-
dent pro tcupore for one day." and it was
unanimously agreed to- The session of
that day being ended, Mr.. Cass ceased to
be President pro temporc
A President pro tempore who is chosen
TO fill the chair left vacant by reason of q
vacancy in the Office of Vice-President
rs subject to removal. Vice-President
King, who died in 1858, was succeeded in
the chair by five different Presidents pro
tempoe during the term for which he was
elected.
Mr.. King, in 1S41 Mr.. Atchison, in
1S49; Mr.. Mason, in 1857, and Mr.. Ferry,
In 1877, had been chosen President pro
fempore at the preceding session. Their
terms as Senators expired on the 4th of
March. The Senate did not elect them I;
1t declared them respectively to be Presi-
dent pro tcmpore, and authorized SEN
ator in each case to administer the oath
of office to them. This oath was the
senatorial oath, no oath as President pro
ienporc being required Only person
who is President of the Senate already
cun be sworn in rs a Senator by Senator
who is not President. So says the statute
The language is:
When a President fMe Senate has not taken the
oath of Office 1t shall be administered 10 him by
any member Of the Scnate.-RepiSed Statutes, Sec
Gop -.
The Senate, in acting under the fore
going section, has seen fit TO declare the
Senator so sworn to be the President pro
tempore. If he was not already President,
how could the oath be administered to
him by any one but the President, as re-
quired by section 2s? And if he ,Dus al
ready President pr0tenpore, what becomes
of the pretense that the Senate has ever
denied new Senators voice in the original
election of presiding officer?
On the 4th OF March, 1853, the Senate
being without a presiding officer, fourteen
Senators were sworn in before President
pro tempOre ,cds chosen. This was done I'M
der resolution authorizing the oath to
"be administered to the new members of
the Senate by the Hon. Lewis Cass, the
oldest member of the Senate"
While the Democratic Senators are nat
urally desirous of using the power they
have up to the line of the limits imposed
by the Constitution, there seems to be no
very general apprehension that they will
pass that line to deny the rights of States
and Senators-elect. No Senator-elect who
was present has ever up to this time been
denied voice in the choice of the presd-
ing officer of the body, unless it be called
IN election where President of the SEN
nte is declared still to be that officer.
If the Democrats shall decide TO admit
the new Senators upon an oath to be adj
ministered by President pro temport
chosen for that sole purpose" "for
one day." then after the admission, or af-
ter the one day, as the case may be, the
Senate will be tie with the duty before
1t of choosing presiding officer and q
Secretary and forming the committees
As neither party could prevail in con-
test, and as a deadlock is to be avoided
above all things, the results would have
to be the result ofa compromise.
If party lines were thus to be ignored
in the selection of officers, it would seem
the most natural thing that seniority in
service should prevail in the selection oi
a presiding officer. This would call tc
the chair the Hon. Henry b. Anthony
who has the respect and esteem Of every
Senator to as great degree as ever had
any member Of the Senate. The re-
mainder of the work would be done on
the basis of mutual concession and re
gard for the public interests.
We incline to the opinion that there
will be no struggle over the organization
of the Senate.
DIR. Bliss.
The report of DIR. Bliss on the Presi