Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-06

should conspire with any person to accom-
pl1sh the same. should be deemed principal
onender. Persons " no aided in the escape
OF any cne guilty OF the foregoing offenses
should be punished as a principal.
Any person who advocated the propr:ety
or necessity of killing the head of any CIV
n1zed nation or who openly justified such
Killing. should be fined not more than 5000,
with Imprisonment from one to twenty
years. No person who opposed organized
government or who was affiliated with any
society opposing it should be permitted to
enter the United States or any place sub
Ject to the Jurisdiction thereof. and no such
person should De naturalized or made Il
citizen Of the United States
ihe conference report was adopted by the
House February 20. and was brought up in
the Senate February -. EXigencies of pol
tiles, however, deferred it's consideration in
the Senate until March 3, just before ad-
journment
Senator Bacon's Objections.
The conference report was vigorously op-
posed by Senator Bacon of Georgia. Mr..
Bacon declared the bill to be most far
reaching in its character. and one. in the
opinion of many of us. absolutely subver-
sive of the fundamental principles upon
which this government is founded He
also raised the technical objection that the
subject of the conference report had never
been considered in the Senate.
Senator Bacon contended that one section
OF the bill was based upon the proposition
that the crime was complete when COM
mitted against one official although the act
was not directed against him because of his
ofncial character and not committed for the
purpose of interfering with or hindering him
In the discharge of his official duties but
as to other officials the requirement was;
tEat the crime should not be complete un-
less the act was directed against the off,
clal because of his official character.
MI Bacon contended that the bill violated
the fundamental proposition that all men
are equal before the law. Mr.. Spooner
pointed out that in the Nagle case the ques-
ton was raised as to the distinction be-
tween the punishment for the assault upon
man and an assault upon that man while
In the discharge Of-his duties as an asso-
ciate of the United States Supreme Court
Senator Hoar's Contention.
Senator Hoar contended that the bill did
not punish more by a hairs breadth the
crime against the official whom the govern
ment protects than 1t does the crime
against the citizen. 1t only provided that
when the crime was against the United
States officer it should be punished by the
United States. Mr.. Bacon argued that If
the chief Justice of the United States were
assaulted in the District of Columbia 1t
would not be so great a crime under the
proposed law as If the same aSsailaut had
assaulted a representative of the smallest
government on earth who is here
Inc debate continued for some time until
nnalIy notice was served by Senator Teller
mat the bill was not likely to pass, and
senator Hoar withdrew the measure with
the prophecy that it would certainly pass
at some time in the future
The Presidential Succession.
another matter of perhaps more prac-
teal importance which Congress. 1t IS
oh fal<
the succession to the presidency in certain
contingencies, for which there are now no
provisions. The Constitution recites that
IN the event of the removal of President
from office by reason of death. resignation
or inability. the Vice President shall sue
ceed him, and that in case of the removal
OF both, Congress has declared by law
Wnat omcer shall then act as President.
II makes no provision for the event of th,,
removal of a president-elect. There is an
interval of nearly two months betwecn The
casung OF the electoral vote in January
ana the inauguration in March, What
would happen if President-elect should
ole In the February before Inauguration?
Who would be inaugurated on March 4
Most people would answer, "The Vice
president-eiect.' Probably this would be
the case. but the Constitution does not s.y
Sc. 1t merely makes an actual Vice Prasi-
cent eligible in case of the removal of an
actual President. When Horace Greeley
dleu De1Ore the electoral college met is
mem bers did not feel bound to vote for B.
Gratz Brown for President. Hendricks Of
1r diana received AZ. Brown 1S, Jenkins of
Georgia 2 and David Davis of Illinois l.
Three Georgia electors voted for Greel .y,
although he was dead. Their votes were
thrown out by Congress. While this ex-
perience by no means tallies with the con-
tingency described, since the electors, be-
fore the college meets. are plainly en-
powered to decide disputed questions it
reveals something of the confusion III :
might follow the death of a Presdent-elect
III February.
The question also arises what would hap
pen If both President-elect and Vice PreSi-
dent-elect We're removed. as by such a con-
spiracy as that of which aSsa ssination of
President Lincoln was part? Neither The
Constitution nor the law makes any pro-
vision whatever for the succession in such
a case. Senator Hoar. as chairman of the
Judiciary committee. has urged an amend
ment to give Congress the power to pre-
scribe by law for the succession in sucn
cases. The proposal was originally made
some years ago by Senator Frye at the ir-
stance of one of his constituents. Senator
Hoar secured the passage of resolutions by
the Senate without opposition two years
ago, but the House never acted on them.
WILL GO TO SEA.