The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-13
The Presidents Excuse for suspending
Secretary stanton.


read in Executive session, but all the oorres-
pondents agree as to its main features. In
fact, there can be little doubt as to what
the President would say. There is in this
action, however, a refutation Of the bold utter
ances of certain advocates Of his Excelenoy's
policy, in which they predicted that It was
the intention of their chief to make this test
case, and to utterly ignore the legality Of the
Tenure of Office bill But Mr.. Johnson has
given the falsehood to these prophecies, and
after mounting the Pegasus of indignation
has wisely decided to descend to earth and act
as the law requires. In truth, we never an
ticipated any other course on his part. While
exceedingly passionate, and while under GER
tain influences exceedingly bold, yet time
causes his courage to gently subside, and rea-
son ultimately dictates which is the safest
course for him to adopt. So, in the present
instance, an indignant opposition has given
way to mild excuse, and lengthy palliation
is the result.
1t seems that the reasons of Mr.. johnson
for removing Mr.. Stanton may be divided into
three heads-the general want of sympathy
between them, the opinion of Mr.. Stanton on
the Tenure of Office bill, and the neglect of
that officer to perform certain duties of his
position. So far as the want of sympathy be-
tween Mr.. Johnson and the Secretary was con-
cerned, we have no doubt that all the
President says is true. That Mr.. Stanton
never assented to the betrayal of the Republi-
can party--that he alone, Of all the Cabinet,
resisted the usurpations of the President and
his disregard Of his pledges, we can well be-
lieve. We have again and again had unde-
niable proof of this difference. The official
publication of the Cabinet proceedings all
showed Mr.. Stanton as voting alone against
the President and the Cabinet. In ordinary
times, this want of sympathy would have been
sufficient ground for the retirement of the
Secretary. But these are not ordinary times.
The Executive had betrayed his party, and
was so acting as to seem to be about to betray
his country. The absolute need of some
trusty servant in the Cabinet was felt by all
the North. 1t was, therefore, not Mr.. Stan
toms duty, so far as delicacy was concerned,
to resign when so requested. Had the usual
routine of official laws been the only thing ito
merit his attention. it would have been
unjustifable for him to continue in
Office after such request and
we have the best of reasons for asserting that
he would not have remained a day after the
receipt of the Presidents note; nor, indeed,
would he have remained within year of the
time he did. Had Mr.. Stanton consulted his
personal wishes, he would have left the Cabi-
net when Messrs. Speed and Dennison threw
up their portfolios in disgust. That he did
10 d,,a 20 natriotioun IN his xyilliOUOaGs
to sacrifice private comfort and wishes to
q patriotic duty; and for this he deserves the
h. thanks of the country. Had he left when his
: fellow Republicans did, we would not, proba-
q bly,, have been to-day in the condition we
. are. The Executive would have carried mea-
sures with all the madness of his egotism and
some plant tool-a Steadmen or his like
would have welded the power of army against
, Reconstruction. The country owes heavy
debt to Mr.. Stanton for his conduct. He acted
from the purest principles, when he replied to
the Executive order that considerations Of
high character constrained him to remain" "
So far as delicacy was concerned, the ex-Sec-
retary acted perfectly right in availing himself
: of all the rights guaranteed him by the Tenure
of Office bill.
. The second reason assigned is that Mr.. Stan
3 ton himself opposed the Tenure of Office bill
/ openly spoke against it, and deemed it highly
t improper to apply it to Cabinet officers, and
y that therefore he ought not to avail himself Of
B its provisions, and if he did, he should be re-
n moved because of inconsistency. To this
Y we need but reply, that as to his action in
/ that matter Mr.. Stanton is sole and exclu-
b sively Judge. He may have acted moon
+ sistently, but he only stultifed himself per
q sonally. He violated no duty, and gave nc
a cause for removal. BUTT does not follow that
s Mr.. Stanton has acted thus. In fact 1t seems
v from what has already been said that he acted
j. perfectly consistently. He opposed the
|. law on the ground of propriety, while it was
# pending, but when it became law, he, like
/ all other citizens, was entitled to all the
y privileges it conferred. The fact that legis
@ lator voted against bill is no reason tina
" either he should be exempt from its duties o.
It deprived of its benefits. There is no incOn
@ sistency in availing oneself Of legal priVi
IL lege after having opposed the extension Of
/ that privilege. Every lawyer, and in fact every
% man of common sense, knows this; so that
l, even if inconsistency was ground for re
le moval-whioh of itselfis ridiculous--for wher
- would the President have been If that rule wa