Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-15
sumption that in 1888 the gap has not
been removed by other aud better legis.

power to perpetuste himself indefinite
|y in the executive ofiice?r
Mr.. Caldwell: 81 do not; and l do
not understand that the bill admits Of
any such construction.
Mr.. Cooper, Of Ohio, who prepared
the minority report, stated the reasons
which impelled him to take a stand
against the measure, and pointed out
the objections which he considered as
fatal to utility. He protested against
the general principle Of the bill,
against the idea Of yesting in the
person who occupied the presidential
chair the power to perpetuate the
succession by naming his successor.
He was profoundly doubtful of the
consiitutionality Of provisions which
would vest the presidency upon man
appointed by an outgoing Administra-
ton. He believed it to be in violation,
not only of the spirit and letter Of the
Constitution, but Of the spirit out Of
which the Constitution rose, and was
unwise legislation, because it tended to
widen the space between the President
and the people.
Mr.. Adams. of New York, rose and
propounded the question, " Suppose
the Secretary Of the Treasury should
succeed to the office Of President and
then appointed a Secretary Of State,
assuming that vacancy existed, who
would be President under the bill?
Would the Secretary Of State, ap-
pointed by the Secretary of the Urea
sury acting as President, after confir-
nation by the Senate, or would the
Secretary of the Treasury, acting as
President, hold the Office for the I'M
expired term, and after the Secretary
of State qualified ?"
"That is question which | give
up" replied Mr.. Cooper.
Mr.. Cooper, continuing, said that if
there were defects in the present law
they should be remedied by carefully
considered legislation. What it was
worth while for an American Congress
to do, it was worth doing well. He
could see no exigency which required
red-hot haste in passing this measure.
Mr.. Eden, of Illinois, defended the
bill against adverse criticism, and
pointed out wherein it was an improve
ment on the existing law. The present
measure would preserve the country
from anarchy in cases of trouble arising
in the matter Of the presidential sue
cession.
Mr.. McKinly, of Ohio, gave notice
Of substitute which he would offer
for the bill. The substitute preserves
the law of 1892, with the addition of
a provision that for the purpose of hav-
ing the Speaker of the House Of Repre-
sentatiyes continually in Office Congress
shall convene on the 4th Of March next
succeeding the election Of representa-
tives to Congress, and whenever a va
cancy exists, either in the office of Pre-
sident pro TEN. of the Senate or Speaker
of the House, the President shall con-
vene the house in which the vacancy
exists for the purpose Of electing pre-.
siding officer.
Mr.. Peters, Of Kansas, regarded the
pending measure as unconstitutional, in
expedient, and impolitic. But for these
faults, it was a'pretty fair bill. lie as
serted that Congress had no power to
enact a law which violated the intent Of
the Constitution, and which in effect de-
clared that an appointive officer should
act as President. 1t was fragrant usur-
patton of the power vested in the people.
Mr.. Seney, Of Ohio, believed that
the presidential succession under the
existing law was at best doubtful and
uncertain. lie detailed the difficulties
which might arise under the present
system and the complications which
might be thrust upon the country in the
event Of there being no President of the
Senate and no Speaker of the House at
the time Of the presidential disability.
He earnestly advocated the passage Of
the pending measure, maintaining that
it would remove many dangers from
the path Of the presidential succession.
Mr.. Cowles, of North Carolina, "a
vored the bill, not because it was the
best that could be devised, but because
it was sufficient for the evil existing to-
day.
Mr.. Adams, Of Illinois, submitted an
argument in opposition to the bill,
which he regarded as dangerous one.
The powers Of the President were so
vast; the splendor Of the office was so
captivating to the minds of even the
wisest Of American statesmen, that
transfer even of the acting presidency
frem one man to another ought not to
be permitted to depend on a state Of
fact so hard to define and so hard to
as " disability"
Mr.. Dibble, of South Carolina, in.
quired whether the same objection
might not be advanced with even great
er force against the existing law.
Mr.. Adams admitted this, but stated
he had prepared an amendment which
would remedy the evil. His second
objection to the bill was that there was
no provision for speedy election by
the people to fill the vacancy in the Of
flee of President.
Mr.. Rowells, Of Illinois, character
lied the bill as a crude one, and sug-
eested that if the presiding officer Of the
Senate was of the same party as the
Executive there would not be hot haste
to amend a law which had stood for
ninety.four years. He could see no
force in the objection to the law that
the presiding officer Of the Senate and
the Speaker Of the House were not
United States officers. Ifthey were not,
then there was no legislative branch Of
the Federal Government; but the
strongest objection to the bill, in his
opinion, was that it permitted the party
in power to perpetuate that power for
an indefinite number Of years, as adj
mitted by the gentleman from Tennes-
see (NIr. CaldwelD. Never before had
The American people been presented
with such temptation to crime; such
a temptation to anarchy such tempta-
ton to revolution.
The debate then closed, but will be
renewed tomorrow, after the transac-
ton Of private business.