Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-01-15


On behalf OF the committee on claims
Mr.. Springer called up the resolution
directing the committee to inquire into
the expectancy Of passing general
laws for the ascertaiDment Of the
facts on all private measures by
Judicial tribunal before action by con-
gress, and also the propriety Of prohibit
ing the adjudication Of private claims or
relief measures by congress.
Mr.. Tucker Of Virginia, while he had
no objection 10 the resolution, contended
that IL referred to a matter over which
the judiciary committee had Jurisdiction,
and he offered an amendment providing
that the inquiry shall be conducted by the
committee OF judiciary.
The amendment was agreed to, and the
resolution as amended was adopted.
On behalf of the committee on presi-
dental laws Mr.. Caldwell of Tennessee
called up the presidential succession bill,
and as there were but q few minutes OF
the morning hour remaining 1t was agreed
that the debate should continue during
the afternoon, Mr.. Caldwell reserving the
right to call the previous question at any
time.
Mr.. Cooper of Ohio, who prepared the
minority report, protested against the
general principles of the bill, against the
idea of vesting in the person who occu-
pied the presidential chair the power to
perpetuate the succession by naming his
successor. He was profoundly doubtful
of the constitutionality of the provision
which would vest the presidency upon a
man appointed by an outgoing admins
tration. He believed it to be in violation
not only of the spirit but of the letter of
the constitution, and it was unwise leg
islation because it tended to widen the
space between the president and
the people. If there were defects
in the present law they should
be remedied by carefully considered leg
islation. What 1t was worth the while
for an American congress to do was
worth doing well. He could see no ex-
igency which required red-hot haste in
passing the measure.
Mr.. Eden of Illinois defended the bill
against adverse criticism and pointed out
wherein it was an improvement over the
existing law. The present measure
would preserve the country from an
archy in cases of trouble arising in mat
tiers of presidential succession.
Mr.. Mckinley of Ohio gave notice of a
substitute which he would offer for the
bill (This substitute preserves the law
of 1892 with the addition of provision
that for the purpose of having speaker
of the house of representatives continu-
Gus in office congress shall convene on
/ the 4th of March next succeeding the
election of representatives to congress,
and whenever vacancy exists either in
the office Of the president pro tenn. of the
senate or speaker of the house the presi-
dent shall convene the house in which the
vacancy exists for the purpose of elect
ing presiding oflicer.)
Mr. Peters of Kansas regarded the
pending measure as unconstitutional, in
expedient and impolitic; but for these
faults IL was a pretty fair bill. He 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. II was fragrant usurp-
alton of power vested in the bill.
The best measure on the subject,
! in his opinion, was the bill intro
duced in 1867, providing for the meeting
of congress on the Attn of March each al
ternate year This would amply provide
against any break in the line of success
sion.
Mr.. Seney of Ohio believed that the
presidential succession under the existing
law was at best doubtful and uncertain.
He earnestly advocated the passage OF the
pending measure, maintaining that II
would remove many dangers from the
paths of presidential succession.
4 Mr.. Adams of Illinois submitted an ar
gument in opposition to the bill, which he
regarded as dangerous. The powers OF
the president were so vast, the splendoi
of the Office was so captivating
to the minds of even the
wisest of American statesmen, that
the transfer even of the acting presidency
from one man TO another ought not to be
permitted to depend on a state OF facts sc
hard to define and so hard to maintain as
"disability." The president woulc
rather have the duties OF his Office go hal
done or not done at all than tc
admit his disability to his successor
On the other hand the secretary Of state
might hold that the question OF disability
must not be determined by the president
but that by mere operation OF law the
secretary becomes the acting president.
: Mr.. Dibble of South Carolina inquired
whether the same objection might not Dc
advanced with even greater force aSalns
the existing law.
: MIR Adams admitted this, but stated
J that he had prepared an hlncnuihSh
I which would remedy the evil. His seconC
1 objection to the bill was that there wal
! no provision for speedy election by tn
people to fill the vacancy IN the Office o
president.
4 Mr.. Rowell of Illinois characterized TN
! bill as a crude one and suggested that !
the presiding officer of the senate were
} the same party as the executive there
r would not be the hot haste to amend
: law which had stood for ninety,fou
I years The objection to this bill Il
: his opinion was that it permitted tn
t party in power TO perpetuate that powe
/. for an indefinite number OF years as 40
e mitted By the gentleman from Tennessee
a Mr.. Caldwell) Never before had IA
: American people been presented WI
such temptation to crime, such temp
= tation to anarchy, such temptation .
! revolution.
5 The debate then closed, II VIII pc re
d sumed tomorrow after the transaction z
a private business.
r on motion of Mr.. Matson OF lhdiaha
Il Friday night sessions We're ordered 10
d the consideration OF pension bills. IN
/. house then adjourned