these things as a result of my studies of the questions, but I thought it was a good deal better to put these in the form of questions.

Senator LODGE. Would you mind telling me what you think of the proposal to have two Vice Presidents?

Senator GREEN. I would prefer not to express any opinion at the present.

Senator LODGE. I thought that is what you would say, but you don't object to my asking?

Senator GREEN. No; if you don't object to my not answering. Senator LODGE. It would make it more interesting if you would answer, but I can see how you feel.

Senator GREEN. Now the next is very important, and I think very little attention has been given to it by writers on the subject.

(7) Whether there are, or should be, any differences between the status, powers, duties, and privileges of an elected President and any other individual executing the office of President.

There are ambiguities in the Constitution. I don't know in certain situations whether a President is simply a President, or only an acting President, executing the duties of the office, and the answers to those affect the question of the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate becoming President.

Senator HOLLAND. In other words, whether they should have a dual capacity or whether they should cease to be one and become the other with full capacity?

Senator GREEN. Yes, and if they act in a dual capacity, aren't they inconsistent? Can he represent the executive and the legislative branches of the Government at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN. Has there ever been any legislation proposed, to your knowledge, or passed, that would consider that they should have a dual capacity? Hasn't all the legislation that has been passed, up to this date, defined their activity as a sole activity of being acting President?

Senator GREEN. Well, that is open also to dual constructions. I don't think the point was in mind when the legislation was passed. I think it has been assumed that the Speaker of the House should become President, if he were elected, and thereby cease to be Speaker of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. In all the reading I have been able to do in the time I have been able to give to it, I have gotten the general impression-that is the reason for my question of you, who I believe has considered it at great length—Ï find that every bit of legislation required the President pro tempore or the Speaker of the House to resign and become the acting President. So it excluded entirely the possibility of acting in a dual capacity.

Senator GREEN. I don't think they all do; some do and some don't. But even then another difficulty arises. Suppose the vacancy were to occur before the time of the reorganization of the House. Sometimes the House would be evenly divided and there would be no head of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be, then, a President pro tempore. Senator GREEN. There are other times, when a session is adjourned and before the new Congress convenes, when there is no Speaker of the House.

1

The CHAIRMAN. Have you given thought to this? Can we or can we not, by law, prescribe that for the purpose of this act the Speaker of the House last elected is the Speaker of the House until a new speaker is chosen?

Senator GREEN. In that case he would be acting in a dual capacity, would he not?

The CHAIRMAN. No; he would not, sir. He would act in that capacity only until he became the acting President.

Senator GREEN. Suppose he became acting President and ceased to be Speaker of the House, then there would be no Speaker of the House. The CHAIRMAN. That is right, and if you had the same provision for the President pro tempore of the Senate, there would certainly be one of the two available; and if not, you could provide for succession as the other bills have, that it would follow down the line of Cabinet officers.

Senator GREEN. Well, all those suggestions are within the scope of this concurrent resolution; they all ought to be taken into consideration. To a certain extent they are interwoven. It seems to me that after 155 years of the history of these doubts, we ought to straighten them out and not have these uncertainties which become more and more important as time goes on.

The CHAIRMAN. In studying the bill that was passed, in 1945, by the House, I note no provision was made for a speaker of the House after the House adjourned sine die. Now what is your interpretation of this? Does the Speaker's office end at that adjournment or does he continue to be the Speaker of the House until a new Speaker of the House is elected?

Senator GREEN. As that would affect my answer to these other questions I would rather not, I think, as a matter of policy, take any position at present on any one of these questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you might give us the benefit of your study. I find that you have been studying this, as chairman of this committee, for years.

Senator GREEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But you don't wish to give us an opinion?

Senator GREEN. I think it better policy not to take any position on any of these questions, but to put them in the form of questions so as to draw attention to them and so that the committee can consider them. Of course there isn't anything to prevent the committee from giving them attention or sympathetic consideration. It is impossible to answer a great many of these questions; no one could. I think if they went to the Supreme Court we might get divided opinions as to the proper construction both of the statutes and the Constitution itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I assume that would be true no matter whether you gave your views as a member of this committee or a member of a joint committee or whether it was the majority of the joint committee, there would still be that question hanging in the air about what the Supreme Court would do about that.

Senator GREEN. It might not be if they recommended certain constitutional amendments to clear these matters up, and then passed the necessary legislation as a result of those amendments.

I don't see, myself, any other way of accomplishing it. But that requires pretty careful thought, and it should be subjected to every

severe test we can put it to of criticism, technical criticism as well as substantial criticism.

Senator LODGE. Then we have added this provision, which was not in the resolution last year:

(8) Whether or not there should be any limitation on the number of terms a person may serve as President.

The CHAIRMAN. That matter is presently before the Senate.
Senator GREEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And has passed the House; that is right, is it not?
Senator GREEN. Yes.

Senator LODGE. Is it not true that this matter has always been considered in the light of death by illness or assassination? Now we have to contemplate the possibility of death due to the action of modern warfare.

Senator GREEN. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. And in airplane transportation.

Senator LODGE. I don't think airplane transportation is any more dangerous than anything else.

Senator HOLLAND. They used to stay home, it was a tradition that the President should not leave the country.

Senator LODGE. That is true.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, with speedy transportation, they go everywhere.

Senator LODGE. The point I am trying to make is that if all you are guarding against is death by sickness or assassination or by travel, that is one thing; but if you are trying to guard against the effects of modern war, then it suggests the need of havin the succession run to people whose official business is not all in the same place; isn't that right?

Senator GREEN. That is right, that ought to be either supplemented

Senator LODGE. That suggests the matter of having two Vice Presidents, one who will be in Washington presiding over the Senate, and one who will be 500 or 600 miles away.

Senator GREEN. I don't know how far away he would have to be to escape all these possibilities of modern destruction.

Senator LODGE. You have to be a fatalist about these matters anyway.

Senator GREEN. There ought to be a way of determining that, no matter what happens, there ought to be somebody who would take over automatically without any hitch.

Furthermore, I might add that in my opinion, it is far more important to have some solution of these questions than it is to have the best solution. I would like to see the best solution; I would like to have, in other words, the solution which I think is best, of course. But I think it is far more important to get some solution, to have it certain. Certainty in a matter of this importance is far more important than to get the best solution.

Senator LODGE. I agree with you that certainty is very important; it is a vital consideration.

Senator GREEN. Now then, in this resolution there are the usual provisions about holding hearings, and sitting, and so forth, and a pro

99101-47

vision that the expenses of the committee shall not exceed $10,000. I do hope that we can report this favorably and pass it in the Senate, and send it to the House; and I hope this time the House may be persuaded to take some action.

The CHAIRMAN. The history of the House taking action of this kind, indicates they declined to pass a bill similar to yours, but did pass a bill last session at the suggestion of and following out the recommen dations of the President in 1945. Again this matter was brought more forcibly to our attention by a second letter from the President, urging that we change the law, making the Speaker of the House the first in line for succession. His main reason for this suggestion was that he felt it ought not to be left in the hands of any President to designate his own successor, but that he should be one chosen from those elected by the people, and that throughout our history we have never had a Speaker of the House-although it is conceivable that you could have-who was not elected a Member of the House; they always have been House Members. History has proven that they have been elected for a great number of terms, and that they have then been chosen because of many qualifications, such as knowledge of the law, affability, knowledge, and competency as a legislator

Senator LODGE. That doesn't exhaust the list of reasons why they are chosen.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but those are some. That, I say, is the reason that is brought more forcibly to our attention now.

But as far as I can find, in the House at the time they passed the bill before, Mr. Monroney had a bill quite similar to the one you now propose, which the House declined to pass, while they did pass the bill in accordance with the suggestions made by the President.

Senator GREEN. Of course, that is one of the phases of the matter that the President brought up, but that phase has been discussed since the time of the original Constitutional Convention. In the Constitutional Convention at one time they adopted a constitutional clause which carried this idea into effect. Then the argument was reopened and they decided no, that wasn't right, that they would be more apt to get a man qualified for the Presidency if they took someone to succeed the President of the same party; that it was more importantour Government was a government of parties-to continue the same party in office than it was to pick out a man who was elected by the people, as you suggest. Of course, the Speaker of the House might not have other qualifications for the Presidency; he may not have been born in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, he has to be qualified to be President to assume this responsibility.

Senator GREEN. I don't want to take the argument against it or for it, but I am saying there is a controversy as to which is most important, to be sure that one party which is elected stays in for 4 years until there is another general election, or to devise some other means of selecting a President and avoid the criticism which can justly be made about the President selecting his successor.

But this isn't anything new. At the time of George Washington it was discussed; at the time of Thomas Jefferson it was discussed. There were great differences of opinion and changes of opinion, on the part of some of our greatest statesmen, and they finally decided it was better this way.

Now, this isn't a new thing coming up. Ever since 1886 we have had this line of succession, and all this debate was gone into then and also previously, and from time to time it has been gone into ever since the Constitutional Convention itself. They may have decided improperly, but that is one of the points for this committee to consider. The CHAIRMAN. I think, just as an observation, it is rather unique that with regard to the discussion as to whether it should be the party continuing in power or the one chosen by the people, we have almost the identical recommendation from President Truman, both when his party was in control of the House and when the opposition party was in control of the House. So it must have been considered by the present occupant of the White House essential to change it, no matter which party was in control at the moment.

Senator GREEN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Another observation. I think it might be interesting, if you haven't studied it, to note that there have been 15 instances in our history where we have been without a Vice President. Seven occurred when they moved up to the Presidency.

Senator GREEN. Mr. Farley brought that out in his recent speech. The CHAIRMAN. Seven of them died in office, and one resigned to become a Senator of his own State. So we have had 15 times when, had anything happened to the then occupant of the White House, we would have gone into succession, but it has never yet occurred.

Is there anything further you would like to offer on your bill at this time, Senator?

Senator GREEN. I think I have covered it.

Senator HAYDEN. You make the suggestion here that this committee be required to report not later than May 1, 1947.

Senator GREEN. That date ought to be changed on account of the delay in acting. It wouldn't of course, give time enough now. Whatever date you think would be appropriate is agreeable.

The CHAIRMAN. I found in the record that you had appointed a special committee, when you were chairman of this committee to study this. Did they ever make a report?

Senator GREEN. Yes; I have a copy of it here.

Senator HAYDEN. It might be well to include that report in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be well.

Senator GREEN. The report was made January 24, 1946, and here is a copy of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us put it in the record so that the members can have the benefit of it.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

[S. Rept. No. 892, 79th Cong., 2d sess.]

The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 50) relating to the succession to the Presidency of the United States, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the concurrent resolution do pass.

Perhaps no subject has aroused more speculation and discussion over the years than the method of election of the President and Vice President and succession to the Presidency. Moreover, any intelligent discussion of this subject is certain to involve grave legal and constitutional questions. Many of these questions have from time to time come to the attention of your committee in the form of proposed legislation. The interrelation between the many issues involved is such