Evening star., 1936-11-29

who approved a single term because 1t
would reduce campaign expenses. I'M
pressed by the amounts said to have
been spent on the election just passed,
many people said this money was
largely wasted, and the less frequently
it was necessary to have expensive
campaigns the better for the national
income.
Smaller groups said that the eight
years permissible now was too long a
term. Said a Dallas lawyer, Il voted
for Roosevelt, but I'd feel better if he
was going to be in Office only two more
years"
OF the great majority who favored
the present tenure for the presidency
about a third looked at the progress
which America has made in the past
and concluded that the present tenure
had proved satisfactory. 1t has always
right so far" asserted a great many
persons.
Others gave more specific reasons for
their satisfaction. A Hoosier declared,
If the President isn't any good, We
can get rid of him sooner under the
present system. On the other hand. a
good President can be put in Office for
four more years" The operator of a
boys camp maintained. -Four years is
long enough for an inefficient man, but
eight years is not long enough for a
good one, like the one We have now"
Precedent weighed heavily with per-
sons who said, Let we'll enough alone"
or Il believe We should be ruled bv
precedent" But the great bulk of the
persons in this class favored the pres
ent tenure because it makes it easier
to effect change if change is found
desirable. whereas it guarantees good
President an adequate tenure.
More than 25 per cent Of the group
which favored the present tenure said
that six years is too long term if
the President proves to be unSatis-
factory. A Los Angeles lawyer said,
Under the six-year system it is just
| too bad if the man turns out to be
a poor President" A Southern house
wife put it, Six years is too long If
the wrong man gets in and not long
enough if a good man like Roosevelt
gets in" A machinist declared,
often a President does not live up
| to his expectations. Under the present
system We can get him out of office
at the end of four and not six years" "
If We get a crook or a bonehead
! in Office We don't want to be forced
to have to keep him six years. We've
just proved that good man can be
reelected answered a Texan. This
point of view was repeated in many
many ways. such as -Four years is
long enough for a poor President -
or If We should get President who
is not doing the right thing it would
| be better to get rid of him at the
end of four years than at the end
of six"
The third largest group among
those who favored the present tenure
was comprised of those who said that
four years is long enough to test the
ability of President, SO that he may
be reelected if he has proved salts
| factory. The manager of a dress shop
summed up this attitude, -Four years
gives the people fair chance to
learn what the President can do If
he's good they'll re-elect him, if not
they'll defeat him." A bookkeeper
said, -Four years gives a man suf-
ficient chance to show if he's good
without giving him time to do too
much damage if he's not" A whole
saler of women's hats contended, six
years if too long time to have a
dangerous man in the presidential
chair. 1t is better to have a trial
period of four years and then get
rid of him if he bungles things-or
leave him in for another term if he's
dependable"
Call It More Democratic.
Of these persons who favored the
present tenure, 6.5 per cent said they
did so because it is more democratic.
They said that it gives the people
more frequent opportunities to regis
ter their approval or disapproval of
Chief Executive, and that it there
fore keeps the administration more
sensitive to public opinion.
There was some fear of dictator
ship expressed. Some thought that
a strong President, with dictatorial
tendencies, could become too firmly
entrenched for the Nations good in
six years. A nurse maintained, "A
President would get to feel that a
crown should go with the position"
While there were some who main
tanned that a six-year term was pref
cradle because they felt four years
was too brief period, there were
others, and they constituted 5.4 per
cent of those opposed to the longer
tenure, who maintained that term
of six years was too short q period to
institute and complete a program.
They emphasized that If the electorate
approved of an administrations pro-
gram at the end of four years, they
could return this administration to
complete its work.
See Helpful Checks.
Closely allied to this argument was
the notion expressed by small per-
centage that elections every four years
had a good effect on administrations
in that they provided helpful checks,
and that II the President was returned
| to ONCE, he would feel encouraged to