The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-05-06

The Whiq very well SAYS ina' "
..sno,, president Of the Senate Prcs''
An, nra ,f,,. il somew bat absurd. just So
Tna rons,ltut,on provides for no sueh otn'
.aa. :, o,,r op,nion. When the Senate was
srst organized, there being no Vice-ffesr
dent In Office, "thc Senate proceeded oy
halo, 70 the choice Of President for tue
so,e purpose Of opening and counting inc
xotes for President OF the Uuited states
In word. real President pro tenn was
ehescn--oue to act for the day, or, rs'nei,
only until the ice-President was coun'eu
inv 50 the President pro tenn. ought 10 DC
chosen now-.to act until the return OF inc
y;ee. President, or until new election Oh
President OF the United States II tne 'ioc-
President be acting as President Oh Tue
limited States. This In passing; put f"
clears the way for our argument
The WHO can't see the logic oil our ar
pumont that because President pro 'em' "
to be chosen in the absence OF tue VICE.
President, and the Vice.President cannot
vo,e FOR that officer, therefore the Vice:Pre'
s,aeot cannot vote for the other officers oil
the senate. Let us make 1t palmer. The
Constitution says the Vice-President sbail
vo,e only when the senators are "equaiiy
divided Does that mean that he can Vo'e
"a seat senatori No, we say. Does II
mean that he can vote TO elect the oi1eefs OF
the senates No. Why? Because Tue same
Constitution saws that "the Senate" snail
choose President pro ten. IN tue absence
OF the yice-Presideut. In oibef woros' 'ha'
a president pro TEN. cannot De CHOSEN
a, all II the Vice.President be present
in the Senate. IL the meaning is thai
,be Senate shall choose a President pro
TEN. TO preside in the absence OF tDe
president, then there is no reason,
pbvsical or other, why said temporary Pre-
sIdent shoold not be chosen in the presence
of the Vice President, nor why the VICE
President should not vote in the election
that Is. II he has the right to vote Tor any
other officer. The Senate Itself, however,
has decided that the Constitution requires
the President pro tenn. 10 be elected IN Inc
absence of the Vice President, ana there-
fore has decided that he has no right 10 vote
in that election. Isn't 1t, therefore, both
fair and logical to argue that as the Constr
tutlou by implication forbids him to vote in
elec,ipg temporary President, the trainers
OF the Constitution intended that he should
vote for none OF The Senate officers!
But the argument is stronger. The IAN
guage Of the Constitution is as follows:
..Tbe Senate shall choose their other Of
GERS. and also President pro tempore, IN
the absence Of the Vice-Presldent, or wnen
no sbalI exercise the Office Of President OF
the United States"
IL is TO put an absurd construction upon
this language 10 say that the Senate cannot
choose their "other officers" except 10 the
absence OF the Vice.President; and we VIII
not waste word. upon that point
But note that the Constitution does say
that "the Senate" shall choose the Presl-
dent pro tenn, and "their other officers"
IL Il the same "Senate" in both cases.
The Senate - thus spoken of does not IN
clude the Vice. President. Tbat Is clear.
Ergo, the Vice.President has no risut TO
yo,e for those "other officers"
we have not seen any argument upon
this question from any senator; but we
have read the declaration OF that accom-
plisbed lawyer, Senator MORGAN, OF Ala
bama, aud also those OF Senators HILL ana
SALISBURY, and others, that the Vice Presl-
deu. has no right to vote in the election OF
the Senate's officers. We regard the claim
OF the Republicans in this behalf as Oh par
with their claim ;bat the President OF the
Senate has the right TO count the votes for
President and Vice. President Of the United
States-a claim on which, in Mr.. CoNKLING's
expressive phrase, the Constitution oil the
United States "turns It's back"
Our columns are so crowded that we can
not pursue the argument.