Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-08-11
sTANroN,s oONTUMACY.

STANTON'S CONTUMACH.
The mean>spirited and contcmptiblc az
titude which Secretary stanton has as
sumed towards the President is without
precedent or justification. No man oil
decency or self-respect could be found IN
the country who would follow so base an
example. He has been for year and
half an enemy in the councils of the
President, and the spy upon the acts and
intentions Of the Executive. If he shall
ever be held otherwise than in scorn and
contempt by any portion Of the American
people, it will argue an abasement I'M
worthy the honor and respect Of man.
kind Hereafter the name Of Stanton
should be held as the synonym Of per-
sonal inlamy. 1t is under color of the
tenure,oEOffice law, that he assumes to
sit, or claim the right to sit where his
presence is not wanted During the
tendency of that law in the United States
Senate. on the 18th Of February last,
Senators Williams, Of Oregon, Howard,
of Michigan, and Sherman, Of Ohio, in
giving their assent to that portion of the
bin relating to the removal Of Cabinet
officers, expressed their views of person
who would play the role Of this Stanton.
We subioin their remarks, as found in the
Globe Of February 26th which will be
concurred in by all fair-minded men of
both parties
Mr.. Williams. | will add that l have
from the beginning of this controversy re-
garded this as quite an inmaterial matter,
notwithstanding the fact that the two
Houses have been very tenacious in the
respective positions they have taken, for l
have no doubt that any Cabinet Minister
who has particle Of self-respect-and We
can hardly suppose that any man would
occupy so responsible an office without hav-
ing that feeling-would decline to remain
in the Cabinet after the President had sig
nified to him that his presence was no longer
needed. As matter Of course, this pro-
vision will amount to very little one way
or the other; for presume that whenever
the President sees proper to rid himself OF
an offensive or disagreeable Cabinet Minis
ter he will only have to signify that desire,
and the Minister will retire, and new APP
pOintment be made but it was considered
by the committee of conference that this
report was in accordance with the spirit OF
the bill, and the only one upon which we
could agree. So far az / was concerned, l
would rather have receded entirely from
the position taken by the Senate than to
have lost the bill, for / consider the bill of
great value. and / am very anxious to see
it pass.
Mr.. Howard. ! have no doubt that the
practical Interpretation of the bill will
he such az the honorable Senator from
Oregon has suggested, and ] shall vote for
this amendment with a great deal Of pleas
IRE, and hope the Senate will concur in
it.
Mr.. Sherman. ! agreed to the report Of
the Conference Committee with a good
deal of reluctance. The Senate had by
two deliberate votes declared its purpose
not to make the duration of the Cabinet
officers fixed by any time, but that they
should hold their Offices at the pleasure of
the President; and that was the original
design in the creation Of their offices; but
the general purpose of this bill is so very
important, it establishes so salutary re
form, that | thought it ought not TO be en-
dangered by a dispute on collateral ques-
ton. The House conferees and the House
by two votes were very tenacious upon the
subject, and there seemed to be probabil-
ity that the bill would be lost upon ques-
ton that was collateral and unimportant.
| take it that no case can arise, or is likely
to arise, where a Cabinet Minister will
attempt to hold on to his office after his
chief desires his removal. | can scarcely
conceive of such case. l think that no
gentleman, no man with any sense OF
honor, would hold a position as Cabinet
officer after his chief desired his removal,
and therefore the slightest intimation on
the part of the President would always
secure the resignation Of Cabinet officer.
For this reason / do not wish to leopard
this bill by an unimportant and collateral
question.
Mr.. Sherman. That the Senate had no
such purpose is shown by its vote twice to
make this exception. That this provision
does not apply to the present case Is shown
by the fact that its language is so framed
as not to apply to the present President.
The Senator Mr.. Hendricks shows that
himself, and argues truly that it would not
prevent the present President from remov-
ing the Secretary of War, the Secretary Of
the Navy. and the Secretary of State. And
if / supposed that either of these gentle
men was so wanting in manhood, in honor,
as to hold his place after the politest init
nation by the President of the United
States that his services were no longer
needed, certainly, as a Senator, would
consent TO his removal at any time, and so
would we all