150 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



which he presides. This is an exception to 

 usages of parliamentary law, which allows de- 

 liberative bodies to choose their presiding of- 

 licers. There is no disagreement or doubt on 

 this point. The Constitution then proceeds : 



The Senate shall choose their other officers, and 

 also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the 

 Vice-President, or when he shall exercise the office 

 of President of the United States. 



" The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Edmunds) 

 says that nobody questions the right of the 

 Senate to choose its officers. That is a canon 

 in parliamentary law disputed by nobody. Let 

 that be admitted. Let it further be conceded 

 that the framers of the Constitution were well 

 and thoroughly versed in parliamentary law, 

 and, being so versed, none knew better than 

 they that the Senate possessed the right, under 

 that law, to choose a presiding officer in the 

 absence of the Vice-President. With this 

 knowledge of parliamentary usage the perti- 

 nent question arises : Why did they insert this 

 latter clause and create the President pro tern- 

 pore of the Senate a constitutional officer ? It 

 was wholly unnecessary, as argued by the 

 Senator from Vermont. The Senate possessed 

 the right to elect a President pro tempore. 

 Why should the Constitution create this office? 

 Why did the wise men who framed that in- 

 strument create an office and define its duties? 

 They surely had an object in its creation. 

 What was it? In the legal construction of 

 any instrument no canon of the law is more 

 strongly established or better recognized than 

 that you shall so construe it as to make all its 

 provisions harmonize, if possible, and that ef- 

 fect shall be given to every expression con- 

 tained therein. 



" The first question which arises in the 

 clause of the Constitution is : What was the 

 intention of the framers of this Constitution in 

 creating the President pro tempore of the Sen- 

 ate a constitutional officer ? The Senate would 

 have had the right to choose him without it. 

 It will not do to say that this is an unnecessary 

 provision ; it would be disrespectful to the mem- 

 ory of those wise men to say that this clause 

 is mere surplusage. You must, therefore, so 

 construe this clause as to give to it some defi- 

 nite effect. You must search for the intend- 

 ment of the framers in creating this office of 

 pro tempore President of the Senate. When 

 you do so, I am clearly persuaded that their 

 purpose was to make him a permanent officer. 

 Permanent how long? Clearly during the ab- 

 sence of the Vice-President. But is that the 

 entire limitation ? No, sir ! The Constitution 

 says in addition, during the period the Vice- 

 President is discharging the duties of President 

 of the United States in the event of the death 

 or removal by impeachment of the latter- 

 named officer. I admit that the tenure of the 

 President pro temwore is of uncertain duration. 

 Still its tenure is fixed and determined, not by 

 the Senate, but by the Constitution ; not for 

 any specified time, but during the absence or 



death of the Vice-President, or while he is dis- 

 charging the duties of President. If the Vice- 

 President returns to the Senate and takes the 

 chair, the tenure of the President pro tem- 

 pore is determined and ceases, and a new elec- 

 tion is legal. If the Vice - President never 

 returns, then the President pro tempore con- 

 tinues until his term of Senator expires ; hence 

 the act of 1792 by its provisions recognizes 

 this construction of the clause as the true 

 intendment of the framers of that instrument. 

 Hence a uniform series of precedents for sev- 

 enty years in recognizing the President pro 

 tempore of the Senate during the absence of 

 the Vice-President and until his return as its 

 permanent presiding officer, not removable ex- 

 cept for cause." 



Mr. Conkling, of New York, said : " Sup- 

 pose, in such an event as has been suggested, 

 the President pro tempore of the Senate should 

 enter upon the execution of the duties of Pres- 

 ident of the United States and his term as Sen- 

 ator should expire before the end of the presi- 

 dential term, is it the opinion of the Senator 

 from Kentucky that he would continue to be 

 acting ex officio as President of the United 

 States, although the term of his senatorship, 

 by virtue of which he came to be President pro 

 tempore, had expired? " 



Mr. Stevenson : " I should think that he 

 would continue to be President until the Gov- 

 ernors of the several States had, after being 

 notified by the Secretary of State of the death 

 of the President, caused an election of an elec- 

 toral college, and a new election of President 

 had taken place under the provisions of the 

 act of Congress. The strongest answer against 

 the argument of the Senator from Indiana 

 (Mr. Morton), as I think, is to be found in the 

 extraordinary results which might practically 

 follow his construction. 



" The act of 1792, in the event of the death 

 of the President and Vice-President, makes the 

 President pro tempore President of the United 

 States until a new election can be held in ac- 

 cordance with the provisions of that act. 



"Does the Senator from Indiana sincerely 

 believe that the Senate of the United States 

 could remove at its pleasure the President pro 

 tempore of the Senate after he became Presi- 

 dent of the United States? If the argument 

 in favor of the right of the Senate to remove 

 the President pro tempore at its pleasure be 

 correct, the right to remove him after he was 

 President would follow. If not, why not? 

 Indeed, I understood the honorable Senator 

 to claim that this right of the Senate to re- 

 move its President pro tempore would extend 

 to him even if he was President of the United 

 States. In support of that postulate, he in- 

 sisted that in some of the States a Lieutenant- 

 Governor who had become Governor still pre- 

 sided over the Senate of the State when the 

 State constitution contained provisions some- 

 what similar to that which we are now consider- 

 ing. He cited Arkansas, and was sustained in his 



