New Britain herald., 1916-12-20
Long Term For President.
(Utica PreSS)

Whether the term of president of the United States should be length ened to six years, with immediate re- election prohibited, is a question which New York paper has been
 asking of railroad presidents, presi-
 dents of chambers of commerce and
 other men of recognized influence in
 the industrial world. Fifty-four re-
 plies were received within a day or
 two and of these all but five favored
 the longer term.
 Of the sixteen railroad presidents
 giving their views, only two opposed
 making the suggested change and
 most of the others strongly advo-
 cated 1t. Some of them favored eight years instead of six, and one or two
 opposed reelection under any cir
 cumstances The most powerful ar gument in favor of the lengthening the presidential term without giving a chance for a second one imm ediate- ly following 1t was given in concise form by President Ripley of the San ta Fe, who said: Because of the necessity of politics. the first presiden- t1al term nearly always makes the in terest of the country subordinate to personal and party ambitions. No private business could be operated on the attenuation of parties and persons in management. How can we expect government business to be we'll handled on so absurd plan?"
 President Peters of the Long Island Railroad, who was one of the two op- posing any change, thought we should go- slow In making changes in the constitution and added: "The quad renn1al elections afford opportunity to take account of the situation and to decide whether we shall change lead CTS and policies, or shall continue them for another four-year period. We need the discussions and agita- tions of the presidential campaign to make Us appreciate our civil duty"
 The question, also asked, whether an extension of the terms of repre- sentative in congress to three years, Instead of two, as at present, brought less unanimity of sentim ent. Of four teen railroad presidents expressing an opinion on it, four opposed it, while ten were for it. An argument put forth by those opposing the sug- gested change was that the shorter term tended to keep tn congressm en in closer touch with the people and with public sentiment. On the other hand, it was urged that so short a term gives 8 man too little time to familiarize himself with the duties of his office, while with the longer period he has opportunity to become better acquainted with the needs of the na- ton as a whole.
 Besides the arguments which have been given, both as regards presidents and congressman, it Is urged that elections, especially national ones, are to some extent unsettling to the coun- try's business, and, of course, the more frequent they are the greater the cost. This last, however, Is not a vital matter, for the cost would never stand in the way of public welfare The question is simply whether the country Is better off with the longer or the shorter terms
 Arguments in favor of longer term for the governor of the state could also be put forth with equal reason. Two years Is pretty short time in which to carry out guberna- torial policies. Of course, if a really man is elected to any of flee, then the shorter his term the bet ter The matter of length of term was one that was fought over when the republic was organized and when the Constitution was adopted. One school of thought was governed by the idea of the greater efficiency in office which the longer term would be likely to give. The other feared putting too much power in the hands of public officials and making them little responsive to the people. 1t Is probable that the sentiment in favor of a longer term for president, at least is stronger now than formerly. Any change will certainly not be made until the matter has been given the fullest discussion and has been viewed from all it's angles, of which there are quite number.