Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-03

4een.ek Hift stle 0acsaraHonf t1otheln|
the lsg& Wd TteasnssT, pr4Derss.
could allow no divided empire in that Of
Hcs Whick vas exclusively MS. And an
other demand Vas made as to the course 0
pro1esai a6H thisrefusaA& 8
They we're next advised, in substance
that only 80 much force should be uses
20 eject she caaszpanf and 3 cbtai1 posses
eion Of the Office and its KEYS as was con
Eistent with that fixed purpose ard with
The kindly and friendly feelings existing
between n@soRal parties 70 the dis
cussi@A Ehk pI6pesifien%f for il Wai
nadein the form Of q decision, but in the
spirit ofan ofehA was IN like manner per.
emptorlv dacfined Ehereupon they Wert
IS pershp56tit told, that al the necessary
pewer q he State should ~baexerted, and
moreover, that q superintendent force wss
WaitngtA Readiness 70 execute this fuIi
procedure instantly upon the Sheriff sign
ing and Masking his return Of the writ.
An exppstplafion was next ued What
necessity, It was asked, was there for force,
when 3 peAcssb1s remedy. so easy and
complete was so close at hand 2 The sug-
gested remedy being supposedto be s suit
20 obtain this Office, the counsel were re-
minded that a civil action was not pre-
scribed by this law, and were assured that
it and it alone should be strictly pursued
in all its lines ard limits. Then followed
the instant demand: What authority, by
this or any other law, the Governor had
IN the Treasury of the State, or what
further authority he had in these particu-
lar proeeedipgs after issuing the order and
causing theatrestR TOtAismost pertinent
and somewhat startling interrogatory,
no other, or better, reply could be
then given, or can now be thought
Of than these, viz: That the
Governor is made by the Constitution
"the supreme executive of the State, and
is specially commanded -" q to see that the
lawsare faithfully executed" and, finally,
that if the proposed action could not be
sufficiently derived or implied from this
general authority, what further power
were legally wanting, must be forcibly
usurped, to meet an exigency and dangers
to the public as great as these For after
the law had declared this office vacant,
and especially and emphatically that
upon the issuance of the order, all the
"o6fctdt poa0ers and functions" of this
particular individual shall cease md de-
determine" 2 and he shall no Lonqer be
1reaskrE, il the Governor, charged with
the enforcement of the laws, should still
suffer him to remain in the Office, it was
very clear that if he should thereafter
proceed to plumber the Treasury of its
last dollar, and to the amount of millions,
the State would be without a preventive
remedy, and his sureties would be, by law,
wholly exempted from their liability for
him since the State would ct least be
estopped from denying that the office was
vacant, and from asserting that he was
the Treasurer. Such a dilemma made an
exigency too pressing and dangerous to
lose time and increase perils by d~allying
with doubts as to want of literal powers.
Moreover, as to the Governors want of
authority in the Treasury, it was plain
enough that, little as he might possibly
have, he had at least more than the late
Treasurer, since the former had not been,
as the latter, definitely excluded there
from.
The hiatus, or gap, in the proceedings
required by this actin regard to where
the right of possessionof this office shall
lie, after the Treasurer has been stripped !
of hisright, and before his successor shall
have been appointed and qualifed-de-
mands much grave consideration in
amending it. This question was symbol
lied in this controversy by the contest for
the keys 1t is now necessary TO ex-
plain the strait in which the State was
placed-by this uncertainty of the law. !
The9only precedent for the custody of !
the keys'o of the Treasury during that in {
terregnuR which must exist in this inter l
val or vacancy in the Office of State Treas s
urer, was that made by the then Governor |
(Chase( in the case of the removal of 5
Gibson, and during the preparation of the !
bond of Mr.. Stone, The Governor him 2
self took, and kept possession of the KEYS !
during the interval. With the greatest :
respect forsthe 1egsl Judgment and the e
discretion of that eminent iurist, l thought Q
this precedent not a good one. 1 there t
fore promptly determined not to follow il. t
1t seemed TO me bad for these reasons, viz: II
1t is unjust to the outgoing Treasurer. P
Whatever embellishments he may have Q
committed he Is, nevertheless, entitled to U
a true statement of his VI accounts, and
to a perfect security that the defalcations Il
of no other person shall be charged upon D
him.. Next the Governor, acting in his G.
executive duty, and necessarily subiecting u
himself to unkind and resentfuI feelings "
of the accused party and his friends, ought b
not to be required to take upon himself, 8
without express directions of the law, such II
a ~fduciary trust, under circumstances so E
open to suspicionSor the suggestion Of sus- 81
And, lastly, such a seizure of the P
keys from the Treasurer, y and retention s.
OF them by the Governor, or byhis agents, o
would undoubtedly release the sureties of d
the Treasurer from all liability for defal- P
cations, subsequent to the report of the Z
not to my other. For B
these and like reasonsI decided in the a
instance against this precedent. And st
mo advised that the KEYS were so dupf- tJ
arranged for partial action Sc
one-half set should be, placed in "
- hands Of one party and the other half b
in the possession of a different party, u
neither could get access to the treasure, 1 oi
voluntarily and in advance made the y
proposition for that arrangement hereto "
e specified After much time occupied el
.refasals discussions and explanations 3.
necessary-or proper 70 be here speci6- d.
cally set forth, the offer was accepted; as
and Immediately upon the arrest, the KEYS l
were actually so divided between the OF
acting for the State, and DIR. 70
Dorsey as the custodian ofhis " rights 10
and those of his s%ureties. This statement bt
sufficiently exemplfies that difficulty for v
the Legislature, if it shall choose, to enact tn
3 remedy for it. sss G12 ii
And now, out of this fair history of A
transactions and counter claims, ia
here do certainly already arise several sc
grave and Important questions, not To
only as to the state of the law, but as to hs
he constitutional powers Of the General el
Assembly to have passed or to pass this or CO
laws 1t is no part of my duty or al
purpose, further than Is requisite to that
If recommending measures of their &c
amendment, to- make an argument of OF
,hese questions of constitutional right, SO tn
involved in these proceedings. That duty W
IS left with tribunal which is in this re- pc
ipect at once above the Executive and the ed
General Assembly. Neither do 1 propose Oh
o say anything IN mere vindication of the ne
particular curse or of the motives of the by
'ficer, 90 painfully embarrassed by these "a
and hard duties. That vindication, pl
f necessary to him, must be left to the So fC
judgment and eonscinnces of impair m
isl men, when they shall have been adj de
7ised of 81 the facts in the case, and shall
nave duly reflected upon all the conse- su
luences of the course of action which he To
ook on the one hand, and upon their in tn
alternatives on the other. m
To recapitulate these questions, evolved of
rom this e0ptr61efsyy which, are Of prac- tn
icsl utility to you in your duty of amend Sc
ng the laws, they are: tic
First: Can the General Assembly, sum- di