Evening star., 1926-03-27
BY WILL KENNEDY.


country can muster.
Having gone microscopically over
the pending proposals to amend the
Constitution as embodied In the So
called Norris and White amendments,
and weighing the probable and pos
sible results. the House leadership
comes finally TO a new proposition,
passing over without comment the et-
fective date provision in section 8
tNovember 80, as suggested by the
House committee, being preferable TO
the Senate date of October 15). The
proposition provides
IF the Preside mt elect dies before
the time fixed for the beginning of his
term. then the Vice President-elect
shall become President; and the Con-
gresS may by law provide for the
case of the death both of the Presi-
dent elect and the Vice President elect
before the time fixed for the beginning
of the term: for the case of the death
Of any OF the persons from whom the
House of Representatives may choose
President, whenever the right OF
choice devolves upon them. and for
the case of the death OF any or the
persons from whom the Senate may
choose @ Vice President whenever the
right of choice devolves upon them.
This, possibly, may supply omissions
In the Constitution, what the lawyers
call "casus omissus." Some such pro-
vision would seem to be necessary
But while Congress Is on the subject
It would be just as pertinent and de-
sirable TO deal with other constltu-
tional omissions which time and cir
cumstanceS have revealed.
For instance, suppose 1t should hap
pen--and this question was raised by
John G. Carlisle, Speaker OF the
House. Senator and Secretary OF the
Treasury--that more than three per-
sons voted for as President should re-
ceive the highest number and an eQuai
number of votes in the electoral col
lege? Suppose there were six candi-
dates, three of whom had an equal
number: who is to be preferred? And
if there should be more than two OF
the candidates for the vice presidency
In a similar situation, for how many
and for whom would the Senate vote?
These and many other questions con-
stitute serious defects In our etectofal
system which are apt to arise 10
plague at any time.
Put once there Is embarkation on
this subject, the problems are TOO
many and too grave for any tlnker
ing with the Constitution. The WnoIe
realm of controverted and suppose
tious questions must be gone INTO
studiously and dispassionately without
regard to partisanship or personal pre-
dilec-ion or opinion. The subject Is
of such vast Importance TO the sta
hility of government and or the coun-
try and to the welfare and tranquiihty
of the people that 1t should not be en-
tered upon lightly, but should be con-
sidered from every angle and view
point by legal minds, by recognized
students of the Constitution, taking
plenty of time 20 bring forth recon-
mendations, If any. that would be ac-
cepted at once and without question
as solvents for the problems inVolveo.
This could be done by a joint commit
tee of Congress composed of men emf
nent in the legal profession. whose
conclusions would be received with
practical unanimtty of opinion. 1t Is
not enough to demand change FOR the
sake of change or in the name OF
progress.
Senator Reeds Statement.
This could hardly be expressed or
epitonized better han in the language
OF Senator Reed Of Missouri, who said
on March Is, 1924, at the outset OF
the consideration Of the instant prop
osition:
"The old Constitution was written
hy some very wise %pen. 1t has
served the country naN*elousIy Well
There has been no emergency in the
life of the Nation or In the condition
of the people which 1t has not been
found adequate to meet. When we
nropose to change such Constitu-
tion it should be done only in the
presence Of some great and command
SI know this is the period OF
change, Of alteration. The idea OF
progress seems to be that II you
change a thing you have progressed
and hence to be progressive you must
insist on change; but, Mr.. President,
putrefaction is change, but It iseharoiy
progress in the right direction. II Is
the progress toward death and disso-
luton.
.'If we were to amend the Constitu
tion of the United States and destroy
the Supreme Court, it would be q
change, but 1t would be retrogresdon,
not progression. II we were to
change the Constitution Of the United
states and provide for the election OF
a king, 1t would be change, but 1t
would be a change that would destroy
the republic.
$50 beg to say that those who
confuse change with progress ano VINO
believe that they can occupy an ex.
allied place in the forward march of
progressivisin only by proposing
Changes frequently make the mistake
Of thinking that everything ought to
he changed and confuse that with
real progress.
saThere has been no system Of gov
ernment ever conceived in the brain
Of man that viii not at times be
found to fail to meet every possible
exigency; and when some obstruction
! IL met with, there IL In these modern
days always some well intentioned
gentleman ready to come forward and
propose q new system. He invariably
proceeds in this wise: There are GER
tain defects discovered in the pr g.
ent SYSTEM therefore It should be
altered or destroyed. and there should
! be substituted for 1t a new system
which its proponents Solemnly assert
will work perfectly. And yet when
| the new system Is tried, It almost in
variably develops defects worse than
| those Of the old and tried system. Sc
| we go on following the will-o '-the.wisp
| that Is labeled Progress and in many
| instance we find that instead of max
! ing progress we are making trouble
'"The spirit OF change broods ovei
I the land II the Ten Commandments
had not been written upon tablets
Of stone the modern progressive gen
| tlemen would have moved an amend
ment, and II any of them had existed
| in the days of Moses they would have
insisted within 80 days on changtns
at least one-half of those immortal
mandates"
Washington's Stand Quoted.
Nor could we do better than heet
the admonition Of the Father of Ou
Country, when he admonished In hi
| Farewell address:
Toward the preservation of you
l Goyernment and the permanency @