National Republican., 1881-08-29
A QUESTION OF LAW.
70 the Editor Of rnr nrrvn1rcAsi

To the Editor Of THE BErUBMcAS;
| noticed an article in Saturday even
ings Sdr, which, i'll am not terribly mistaken rs
TO the law and the facts shows great lack of proper
Information on the part Of the editor who wrote
the same. refer to an article headed "a Wise
and Timely Precedent" i'm which the writer treats
ofthe disability Oft the President and the proper
manner Of providing an executive head Of the
Government during such disability The writer
cites the case Of Governor Morton's enforced alb
sence in Europe while Governor Of Indiana, when
the
LIEUTENANT. GOVERNOR ACTED AS GOVERNOR
during such absence, in pursuance of" n clause In
the State constitution exactly like that In the Ma
tional Constitution relating to the inability Of
the President" The National Constitution does
not contain such provision touching the tempo
rary absence the President from the fact that IL
Is an unwritten Qf not writtcn) law Of the land
that the President shall not, during his incum-
bency Of the office, go outside Of the territory Of
the United States. We believe he is thus limited TO
voyage Of but three marine leagues seaward.
As the President cannot be absent from his do
minions or YOU will permit me to use the express
son) during his term Of Office no necessity arises
for provision Of law or usage creating an acting
President, as in State for an acting Governor
PRESIDENT Is PREsrDEST ANYWHERE
III the United States, while Governor Is only
Governor when within the borders of his own
state, and any usurpaton of gubernatorial au-
thority which may haYe been permitted in In
diana would not offer an excuse for the same in
case of an absence from this city Again. under
our form Of government as now construed, the
President and his Cabinet form, in fact, an official
household, of which the Vice President never is
| member Further. in this connection-a query
for constitutional lawyers
WOULD a PRESIDENT ny ABsESTiSG HIMSELF
from the territory of the United States during his
incombenoy, In so doing vacato the oiiice2 The
article in question further discusses the subject OF
the organization of new Congress on the 18th day
of March, Immediately upon the death by limita-
ton of the preceding Congress, and suggests, If
need be, II constitutional amendment providing
therefor. During the late war Congress did so
organize, such organization having been provided
| for, we think, by act Of Congress itself, without
any necessity for constitutional provision. This
rule maintained down to the organization of the
Forty third Congress, which met in December,
THE LAW PROVIDING ron ORGANIZATION
on the ith of March having been repealed by tn {
! Forty-second Congress, the cxigcncy being
deemed past. In those days Congress had a first
second, and third session. instead of only first and
second, as now. Am l not correct In this, and Il
not simple act of Congress itself all that is ne.
cessary TO secure full organization Of this branch
fthe Government on March 4 in each odd year
and thus give US II continuous Congress- fully OIL
ceied, preventing complications and calamtie.
possible at the present time? G.