Evening star., 1946-03-03

T. DONStdS
impeached by the House. He made a
plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the
House was without right to impeach
him and the Senate without right to
try him.
In his plea he maintained that the
clause in the Constitution providing
that the President, the Vice President
and all civil officers shall be liable to
impeachment did not apply to him be-
cause he held his commission from the
State of Tennessee and not from the
United States. and in no sense was an
officer of the United States.
Plea Is Accepted.
His plea was accepted and the articles
OF impeachment were dropped. Since
then it has been argued by some that
Congress itself. by its ruling in the
Blount case, has held it's members are
not Officers" within the meaning of
the Constitution.
However, on the other side, there was
the report of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 1856 in response to the
Crittenden resolution. The resolution
was introduced by Senator Crittenden
of Kentucky. 1t directed the Judiciary
Committee to examine the constitution
ality of the 1892 law. The committee
reported it believed that law ito be
constitutional in all respects"
The next milestone in the story of the
succession discussion was the assassina-
ton of President Garfield. Bills were
introduced. Immediately to change the
act of 1892, but none was successful
until the Forty-ninth Congress passed
the act of 1886 Several bills were Of
fered in that Congress. One would have
provided for a second Vice President
and another went so far as to have
designated a second Vice President and
a third Vice President.
Senator Hoar's bill was passed and the
debate on it makes clear the belief that
a successor, in case of the disability of
both the President and the Vice Presi-
dent, would be only an acting" Presi-
dent and would, at the same time, con-
tinue to hold the Office by which he be-
came eligible to be a presidential Sue
cessor.
Clear Distinction Made,
1t was pointed out there is a clear
distinction between the language the
Constitution employs regarding the con-
tingency of Vice President succeeding
President and that used regarding a
case where third person succeeds both
a President and Vice President. In
the former case the powers and duties"
of the presidency shall devolve on the
Vice President. In the latter case Con-
gresS may declare what officer shall
then act as President, and such offlcer
shall act accordingly" until the disabil-
ity is removed or new President is
elected.
In arguing against the act of 1892
Senator Hoar assumed that if the Pres
ident pro tenn. of the Senate should be
called upon to act as President he would
continue in his Senate Office. Senator
Hoar held 1t would be almost impos-
sible" for one man to discharge the
duties of the two Offices, and he con-
tinued
Nothing can be conceived more awk-
ward, more repugnant to our sense of
propriety, than for the President of the
United States to sit in the chair of the
Senate and preside over and listen to
discussions in regard to his own nomi-
nations, voting upon them himself as an
equal in the Senate, and presiding over
and listening to the severe criticism of
executive policy which in times of high
party antagonism must be always
heard in this chamber"
1892 Act Not Sacred.
Senator Hoar conceded, however, that
whether the President pro tenn. would
continue in that Office while acting as
President was debated question. 1.-The
fact it Is debated question" he said,
"is reason for abrogating the condi-
ton"
Senator Samuel B. Maxey of Texas
asserted there was no "sanctity' in the
1892 act because it was influenced by the
war between Hamilton and Jefferson.
He said the Blount case was conclusive
settlement" of the question whether
Senator or, for that matter, the Speaker
Of the House, was an officer of the
United States.
"It is proper to observe" he said,
that the decision in the Blount case
nearly 80 years ago Tin 1885, has never
been overturned" He also cited the
constitutional prohibition of an officer
of the United States being a member
of either house.
Senator Evarts made the chief speech
in the debate in 1885. He also cited
the Blount case and made the point that
because of that case successor Presi-
dent under the 1892 act would not be
subject to impeachment. That was on
the assumption the acting President
would hold his first Office at the same
time.
On another point he said the Consti-
tuition left it mot possible to either of
the two houses Of Congress to allow the
successor in the presidential office
named by Congress to take the place
where Congress itself had been the ac-
cuser and judge to vacate it."
Conceptions Have Changed.
The trainers of the Constitution, he
continued, when they provided that
Congress should declare what officer
should act as President, saw when they
limited it to an officer of the United
States that they exclude a Senator or
Representative, because in the same
Constitution, using the same phrase, not
pointed to any particular circumstance