that only "in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office", shall "the same devolve on the Vice President".

Strictly and perhaps legally speaking, none of the conditions, thus depicted and restricted, would exist in the circumstances anticipated. The President would not have been removed from office, he would not have died nor resigned, nor would he have shown "inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

There would be no President. On the stroke of twelve, meridian, on March 4, 1925, the term of the present incumbent would have expired and Mr. Coolidge would have become a private citizen. There would be a vacancy. And not only is no provision for filling a vacancy made by either the Constitution or the statutes; but there is no authorization in the Constitution for the Congress to make such provision.

The Congress (Article II, section 6) may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected. That is all. A vacancy is not contemplated, and the powers of the Congress are restricted accordingly to the exigencies specified. This limitation is recognized and observed in the Succession Act, approved January 19, 1886, which in identical language provides that “in case of removal, death, resignation, or inability of both the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State"-then the Secretary of the Treasury, et al.,—“shall act as President until the disability of the President or Vice President be removed, or a President shall be elected"

Here again provision for filling a vacancy is noticeable by its absence, for the obvious reason doubtless that the Forty-ninth Congress realized that it lacked authorization to make one. The same question arises, therefore, as to the legality of the succession of the Secretary of State as that which pertains to the eligibility of the Vice President.

There is, however, one highly important difference between

the two officials as possible Presidents by succession. If the eligibility of the Vice President should be established and recognized, Mr. Bryan would be installed in the White House for a full term of four years. The accession of the Secretary of State, on the contrary, would be subject to the following proviso contained in the Act of 1886:

Provided, That, whenever the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States shall devolve upon any of the persons (Secretary of State, et al.) named herein, if Congress be not then in session, or if it would not meet in accordance with law within twenty days thereafter, it shall be the duty of the person upon whom said powers and duties shall devolve to issue a proclamation convening Congress in extraordinary session, giving twenty days' notice of the time of meeting.

The implication of this proviso conveys the unmistakable intent of the statute that the Secretary of State should act as President ad interim, only, in the words of the statute, “until a President shall be elected," at a time and in a manner to be prescribed by the Congress, which he is charged to "convene in extraordinary session," presumably for that purpose.

The final determination of these legal points would lie unquestionably in the Supreme Court, but how the questions involved could be submitted to, and adjudicated by, that august body while the House of Representatives and the Senate still possessed authority to elect respectively a President and a Vice President, i.e., prior to noon of March 4, is a puzzle in court procedure, from which a layman, to say nothing of a lawyer, retreats in dismay.

The political situation would be less complex. We have set forth certain very practical reasons for the surmise that Senator La Follette and his associates would coöperate with the Democrats in electing Mr. Bryan Vice President. There is another that would appear to them as hardly less cogent. They are aware, of course, that no tenure of office is fixed for a Secretary of State and that consequently Mr. Hughes would continue to hold his present position, irrespective of the expiration of the term of President Coolidge, and, in the event of no election of either President or Vice President, might, and probably would, assume the duties of the Chief Magistracy, from which, even

though serving only ad interim, he would exercise a large measure of control over subsequent proceedings.

Inasmuch as Mr. Hughes is also a Wall Street lawyer, between office-holdings, and quite as offensive in Mr. La Follette's eyes as Mr. Davis himself, it is hardly conceivable that the Radicals would hazard a possibility of his elevation to the Presidency for so much as a day.

Wherefore we are convinced that, in the event of no election, Governor Bryan would be chosen Vice President before March 4; that his title to the vacant Presidency, if challenged at all, would be confirmed, through broad construction of the fundamental law, upon the ground that the Constitution, like Nature, abhors a vacuum and never contemplated an empty chair at the head of the Government; and that on March 4, Vice President Bryan would be duly inaugurated President of the United States for a term of four years.

Even though, in the end, the outcome should be that anticipated, there could not fail to be, in the meantime, immeasurable confusion and utter chaos, with all attendant evils, the very recital of which would be little short of terrifying, spelling, in the grave words of Senator Borah, "as tragic a situation as, outside of actual war, could arise in a republic”.

We conclude as we began:

Neither Davis nor La Follette can, at any time, win a majority of votes in the Electoral College.

It is doubtful if Coolidge could obtain a clear majority now or next week.

Looking to November then, the Paramount Issue is:

COOLIDGE OR CHAOS.

And Chaos spells Calamity.

A CORRECTION

THE following communication was addressed by George Harvey to the Hon. George W. Wickersham, formerly Attorney General of the United States, on December 28, 1923:

I am somewhat mystified by a statement, in your interesting article in the current number of Foreign Affairs, to the effect that, in my speech in London on October 23, I declared that "the national American foreign policy is to have no foreign policy".

You naturally take exception to such an assertion and cite the "Monroe policy" as "the most notable" of "certain well-defined principles which have governed our international relations" and, in confirmation of your point, you refer to Secretary Hughes as having recently restated the Monroe policy as "a distinctively American policy."

"Evidently," you add, with perfect logic, tinctured with gentle irony, "our recent Ambassador to Great Britain is not in accord, on this point at least, with the opinion of the Secretary of State."

Undeniably this would be the fact if your premise were correct. It does not happen to be. What I really said was this:

"It is not unusual, especially in democracies, for a political Opposition to chide an existing Government for having 'no foreign policy'. The accusation is made frequently in my country of whatever Administration happens to be in power. But it has no basis in fact. The United States has a National policy with respect to foreign relations-a distinct and clearly defined policy, from which there has been no deviation in a century of time..

"It is not, technically and precisely speaking, a National policy. It is an American principle. We are accustomed to refer to it as a doctrine—the Monroe Doctrine; it is really a dictum, the only dictum ever declared by a President of the United States, without legislative sanction, which possesses the full authority of fundamental and international law.

.

"The Monroe Doctrine is no less sacred in our eyes now, when we are rich and powerful, than when we were poor and weak. It continues to be, in all its phases, the cornerstone of our National policy, and must be recognized and accepted as such in all international transactions."

These were my exact words, as they appear in the original manuscript, which lies before me, and as they were published in the London newspapers, copies of which I should be happy to send to you if you should care to examine them. You will readily perceive that they comprehend the exact opposite of the phrase which you quote, namely, that "the American foreign policy is to have

no foreign policy", and conform precisely with "the opinion of the Secretary of State".

Although the report upon which you based your misquotation seems not to have been carried by the Associated Press, I do not doubt for a moment, of course, that you regarded your information as authentic. Experience has taught me that hasty transmission by cable is responsible for many erroneous reports, but a complete reversal such as this account conveys is so rare that I should really like to know where it appeared. Nevertheless I do not consider the matter of sufficient importance to ask you to bother about it especially. The thought simply occurred to me, upon chancing upon the reference in Foreign Affairs, that you might like to avoid possible reiteration of an inadvertent misrepresentation.

In any case, any slight annoyance which I might, perhaps naturally, have felt is more than counterbalanced by the amusement which I derived from your kindly reminder, that "another American national policy, based upon Washington's farewell advice, has been to avoid ‘entangling alliances'" and that "surely, Mr. Harvey can hardly have forgotten the changes rung upon this policy by him and those with whom he was associated in the conduct of the campaign against membership in the League of Nations."

Upon this point I can give you full assurance. Indeed, speaking with perfect candor, there have been times when I suspected that my recollection of the excellent admonition referred to was even more distinct and vivid than your own. But that is beside the mark.

Mr. Wickersham responded promptly, under the dates, December 31, 1923, and January 4, 1924, as follows:

I am much distressed to think that I should have misrepresented in my article in Foreign Affairs what you said in your London speech on October 23. I am not sure just what newspaper I had before me when I wrote. My impression is that it was The New York Times, a paper upon which I generally rely for accurate reports of speeches and communications of public men. The statement as I read it was just what I quoted and gave me a pointer for the article I then was thinking of.

Had what you quote from the manuscript you used been published, I never should have thought of using it in connection with the theme of my article. The next time I am where I can lay my hands on a file of newspapers I will endeavor to find the report from which I quoted.

Meantime I can only express my very great regret at having used an inaccurate report in commenting on your utterances. I will prepare a brief note and ask the Editors of Foreign Affairs to insert it in their next issue, so as to relieve you from the continued imputation of making the statement as quoted. Thank you for writing me.

Referring again to your letter of the 28th ultimo, I have now found the edition of The New York Times to which I referred in writing my article in