The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1867-03-21
The Veto Of the Civil tenure Bill.

! The Presidents message returning the
bill to regulate the tenure of certain civil
officers is singularly weak and and incon-
elusive document Briefly summed up, it
says that because it has been thought that
the President has the exclusive power Of re-
moval, under the existing laws, therefore
any legislation to establish IA different sys
tenn is unconstitutional.
Let us see if Mr. Johnson's historical Ia
cubratious have discovered anything more
convincing than this He cites the fact
that in 1889, when the bill to create the
State Department was before Congress- a
motion was made to strike out the clause
which gave the President power to remove
the Secretary Of State at his pleasure. Now
observe the low cunning exhibited by the
President in stating the result Of this mo
ton: 1.-The question which was ably and
extensively argued was decided by the
| House of Representatives by vote of 81
to 20 in favor of the principle, that the ex-
elusive power of removal is vested by the
constitution in the Executive; and III the
Senate 10y the casting vote Of the Vice Pres
ident leaving it to be inferred that the
question was thereby finally settled where.
as the only effect Of that vote WIS that
! Congress by it refused to strike out the
clause referred to because it thought it best
| that the officers should be removed by the
President If it was absolutely determined
that the exclusive power Of removal was
vested in the President by the Constitution,
which is the only view which will support
hlr. Johuson's position, the clause should
have been stricken out as the merest supe-
| rogatiOn. 1t is true that the President s
right to remove, without the advice and
consent of the Senate, was discussed during
the tendency of the motion, but the vote of
the members Of Congress might have been,
aud undoubtedly was, influenced by other
considerations than their views OH the con-
stitutional question involved.
| Or concedng that tie vote was upon that
point alone, it amounts simply to ex-
preston Of Congress as to what is the prop
er construction of certain provision in the
Constitution TO say that such Irgsla-
tive Interpretation has such binding force
as to control the action of a subsequent Con
gress is absurd.
| Take a contempOraneous example: Pres
ident Johnson vetaed the reconstruction bill
because he thought it unconstitutional
Congress thought otherwise and passed it
over the veto Will Mr. johnson claim
that this action forestalls any effort to at
tack the constitutionality of the bill either
in Congress or the courts?
Suppose Congress had inserted in this act
creating the Bureau of Foreign Affairs a
clause providing that the head of that de-
partment should only be removed by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
1t is not to he supposed that such a provis-
ion would have been held TO be in conflict
with the Constitution. Yet that is all
which the Civil Tenure Bill enacts with res
pect to that aud certain other Offices
The opinions of Kent and Story, which
he quotes, are only to this effect; that it
had become the accepted construction of the
constitution that the power of removal rest
ed with the President aloue ard they do
not go to the question Of the constitutional
ity Of an act to associate the Senate with
him in the exercise of that power.
Both Houses Of Congress showed a just
appreciation of tie Presidents logic, by pas
ing the bill by the necessary two thirds
vote. The purpose and effect of the meas
ure is to take from the zone man power" a
very dangerous perogative, and distribute
it among the representatives Of the people
1t will be approved by great majority of
our citizens, as a timely aud judiciouS stat
ute.-Mtt Sen.