Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-01-12
SOCIAL PRECEDENCE AND con-
STITUTIONAL LAW.
How Pending Legislation on the Pres.
idential Succession Bill May Affect
Washington Society.

1t is little curious that the law proposed, which
is to alter or extend the line OF the presidential
succession, should now be generally discussed by
statesmen and Others, just at time when ques-
ton of social precedence in official life in Washing
ton Is also q favOrite theme OF conversation and
topic for newspaper paragraphs
HOW much the particular question OF official
precedence now being agitated (the question being
as to the proper place among the highest officials
OF the Speaker and his wife) depends on the other
one OF constitutional law in regard to the succession
TO the presidency, none who have not given
thought to the matter can understand. So Close
however, is the relation between them that when
the law regulating the presidential succession is
altered In any way from that now in force. the
social code or etiquette in regard to the four highest
One ollces must be changed also. In fact change Of
that law known as section 146 OF the Revised
statutes, which provides for the succession in the
CTder named: first of the President pro tenn OF the
the time being in of vacancy in the offices
OF both President and Vice President would bring
about about, what n the French would call "5oaererse
hem, In Washington society, so thoroughly
mixed up are social gossip and constitutional law
IN this, our national capital.
HOW IT WOULD WORK.
For instance, suppose. as was proposed by the
bill the Senate passed last winter the Secretary OF
state was put In the line Of succession after the
President OF the Senate and the Speaker of the
House, then he would take precedence directly
after them on state occasions and before the Chief
Justice and Senators, which is not now the case or
the Chief Justice We're put in the line or the sue
cFSSlon The claim OF that officer TO Official prece-
dence on State occasions would be established be-
yond a peradventure, while now it is often ques-
toned whether he should rank next after the Vice
President not.
"IN MY sEAT.n
sometimes Associate justices Of the Supreme
Court have claimed precedence even over the Vice
President. This was done by one Of them when
MI Breckenridge held the latter Office. as a lady
here told the writer recently. She said Vice Presi-
dent Breckenridge was her escort to the table ut
dinner given by herself and husband, and had. OF
course, the seat on her right. Justice OF the SUI
pfeme Court. since dead. said TO her later: 'Of
course, you have right to put me where you
choose at your table. but you gave Mr. BrecEen-
ridge nay seat meaning that TO which he cOnsfi-
cred Justice of the supreme Court entitled all
occasions where f0rmaitie OF etiquette strict
ly observed
AN oID-TIME CONTROVERSY.
There was decided difference of opinion among
Congressmen even in 1891 and 11a2 as to the rela-
tive rank Of the Chief Justice and the Speaker
Mr. Sedgwick said. on January 10th, 1891, when
the bill to decide what officer should ill the place
of President in case Of vacancy in the second Office
also. that ''the office of Chief Justice was consid-
cred as next to that of P,'eside,' and therefore
thought him the proper person to fill the vacancy.
the Speaker OF the House OF Representatives. was,
in his opinion, the next officer in point of dignity
W lne nt anu Vice ffeSltGnt.
Mr.. Sedgwlck quoted aboye), it will be observed,
reckoned the CHIEF Justice even above the Vice
President, as also did the Justice in the time OF
Vice President breckenridge, to whom allusion has
been made.
An Associate Justice Of the T. s Supreme Court
told the writer, few weeks ago, that he considered
that the Speaker should take precedence of all the
Justices OF the Supreme Court.
Some in contcnding for the right of the Court to
precedence of the Speaker, have claimed it on the
score of the justices being permanent Officers hav-
Ing their appointments for life, while the Speaker
is elected only for two years and never has any Ger
talnty during that time OF a reelection.
But If permanency In Office be conceded to be a
proper ground for according precedence to officers
appointed for life, where would the President and
Vice President, who are elected for only four years
take place? On that score they must yield Drece-
dence to all justices of the United States Supreme
life. That the line Of succession to the Presidency
was by the early statesman considered proper
dence en ratHr s ground 10 on Wheh to base
Mr. Roger sherman said in the debate January
1sth l9G IN the the II House n Of
ate, and opposing putting in any Head OF Depart
aaent to succeed in case OF a vacancy in the office
of President and Vice President: $40 designate
any officer possible successor to the President
would be giving him too much dignity, and raising
him I'M In manner even above the legislature"
Secretary OF State for the time being" having been
in this debate renewed by Mr. Carroll, Mr. Liver
filing that Office should have no weight in deter
mining the question: because the House was about
to provide for a case that might not happen for
the officer who would from the nature
of his Office, most naturally succeed. He
hoped they would not determine In favor of an
OFFICER OF their own creating. and Of whom men,
tfon Is made In the constitution. He objected to
the Chief Justice who had been named, because ac-
cordng to the provision Of the constitution he must
preside in case the president SHOULD be impeached
He approved of naming the president pro tenn of
the Senate because this, being an elective govern
ment, he did not wish to the chief magfstracy
filled by an officer not the choice OF the people
therefore he favored the naming of the president
pro tenn OF the Senate because he was originally
chosen by the people to the Senate
Mr.. Lfvermore continued: ''When amendments to
the constitution came to be thought of, perhaps t
would be proper to provide for this case by Spe-
clal clause In 1t, empowering the electors who had
chosen the President and Wee President in case OF
only, however, for the remainder Of the four years;
because at the end of that time the power of choos
ing he electors should return to and be exercised
by the several StateS.'
MR.. M'CoID's BILL
Thus 1t seems that the bill proposed by Mr. Nc
Cold at this session OF Congress had the sanction
OF at least one hOnored statesman in the First Con-
gress, as the proposition last quoted is similar %
that OF Representative McCoid.
OF course If the law now in force, approved March
1s, 1892 and generally known as section 146 of the
Revised Statutes, were abrogated entirely, some
suggest should be done, the Speaker and his family
could not lay any claim to the precedence now ac-
corded them.
Speaker Carlisle Is one of several Of the states
men of to-day who considers the present law for
providing for the succession Of the President of the
Senate and Speaker Of the House of Representa-
tveS, contrary to the iutent of the Constitution
when 1t left 1t to Congress to provide for the Pres
Dental succession in OF vacancy in both the
highest offices. He thinks the Constitution meant
an officer OF the United States to be named and he
says it has been decided over and over again in
important cases that members OF neither House of
Congress United States officers, and that they
cannot be 1mpeached for any miSdemeanor as |
United States officers can be. When it was men
toned to him that In reply to this same argument
against naming the President pro tenn. OF the |
which passed the present BILL Mr. Gerry had said: |
"The Constitution says that the House OF Repre-
SentativeS shall elect their Speaker and other OFF,
GERS" Mr.. Carlisle answered. ''YeS, tt says their
Speaker; so the Speaker is officer of the House
OF Representatives not OF the United States"
Some OF those taking part in the debate in 1912
thought the president OF the Senate an officer of
the United States, and Others that he was not Mr.
Roger Sherman thought he was. An objection |
made by Mr.. David Carroll, OF Maryland, to nam
only an officer pro tena Mr. Gerry, who objected
to naming the Secretary OF State In the line OF sue
ceSS1On, thought the nomination should not be con-
fined to OtfcerS OF the United States. MeSSrS Smith
South Car0lina), White and Sedgwtck, {the latter
Representative from Massachusetts.) thought an |
Constitution. |
CURIOUS VIEW OF THE CASE.
Speaker once in the line OF the presidential sue
cesson, according to one authority at least, would
not lose his claim upon 1t, even by the expiration
OF the Congress- to the House OF Representatives OF
which he was elected, but would be eligible in the