Certainly! Here is the revised version with improved grammar:

---

The question of presidential succession had often been debated. The Constitution is vague, stating: "The Congress 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." The Constitution was unclear on the fundamental question of what constituted an officer of the country. Congress passed a law in 1792 that stated if there was no Vice President, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, followed by the Speaker of the House, would become President. It also called for a special election to be held in such a case.

Scholars had questioned the Act of 1792, wondering whether the two members of Congress qualified as officers of the country. A committee was established to examine the question. It reported back that the Act of 1792 “would disturb the success under the present statutes, and would in all probability lead to contest over it that would disquiet the nation, unsettle business, and disturb the peace of the country.” The committee was concerned about the legal status of the members of Congress and noted that there were times when those offices were not filled. The committee was also concerned about the constitutionality of holding special elections.

Thus, Congress enacted the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. It replaced the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. It also removed the provision for a special election, instead stating that the successor would serve out the term of the President.

---