The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-01-21

considered legislation. What it was worth while
for an american congress to do, WAS worth doing
we'll He could see no exigrncv that required red
hot haste in passing the measure.
Mr. Eden, of Illinois, defended the bill against
adverse criticism, and pointed ont wherein II was
an Improvement over the existing law The pres
ent measure would preserve the country from
archy in case of trouble arising in matters of pres
idential succession.
tute which he would offer for the bill. (This sub
stitute preserves the law of 1909, with the addition
of provision that, for the purpose of having
speaker of the house of representatives continuous
March next succeeding the lection
of representatives to congress, and
the office of president pro TEN of the senate or
speaker of the hluse, the president shall convene
the honse in which the vacancy exists for the pur
pose OF electing presiding officer
Mr.. Peters, of Kansas, regarded the pending
measure as unconstitutional, ineXpedient and i'm
polite. But for these faults, il was pretty fair
bill. lie asserted that congress had no power to
enact law which violated the intent of the con
stitution and which, in effect declared that an APP
pointive officer should act as president, II was
ilagrant usurpation of power vested in the bill,
The best measure on the subject in his opinion,
was the bill introduced in 1867, providing for the
meeting of congress on the 4th of March, each al
ternate year, This would amply provide against
any break in the line of succession.
Mr.. Seney, Ohio, believed that the presidential
succession, under the existing law, at the hest
doubtful and uncertair, He earnestly advocated
tne passage OF tne penang measure, MAINTAINING
that it would remove many dangers from the path
of the presidential succession.
Mr. Adams, Illinois, submitted an argument in
opposition to the bill, which he regarded as a dan
gerous one The powers of the president were so
vast, the splondor of the Office was captivating
to the minds of even the isest of American
statesmen that the transfer of the acting pres
dancy ought not to be permitted to depend on
d state of facts so hard to define and so
hard to maintain as disability" A president
would rather have the dnties of his Office half done,
not done at all, than admit his disability to his
successor. On the other hand the secretary of
state might hold that the question of disability
must not he determined by the president, but by
the mere operation of law the secretary becomes
acting president
| Mr. Dibble, of South Caroline, inquired whether
| the same objection might not be advanced with
even greater force against the existing law,
| Mr.. Adams admitted this, but stated he had pre-
pared an amendment which would remedy the evil.
Ills second objection to the bill was that there was
no provision for speedy election by the people, To
fill the vacancy in the office of president.
| Mr.. ROwe of Illinois, characterized the
| bill as crude one and suggested that If the
presiding officer of the senate was of the same
party as the executive there would not be the hot
| haste to amend law which had stood for ninety
four years The strongest objection to the BILL in
his opinion was that il permitted the party in pow
er to perpetuate that power for an indefinite mum
| Der of years, as admitted by the gentleman from
| TennesseeI Caldw elD. Never before had the Amer
lean people been presented with such temptation
| to crime, such temptation to anarchy, such temp
taton to revolution.
The debate then closed, but will be resumed to
morrow after the transaction of private business
On motion of Mr.. Watson of Indiana, Friday
night sessions were ordered for the consideration
of pension bills.