The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1867-08-21
The Removal of the Secretary Of War-Can
THE PRESIDENT REMOVE A CABINET OFFICER?

| THE PRESIDENT REMOVE CABINET ofFlIhh-
From the New York World, August Il
The action of the President in relation to Mr.. STAN
ton raises this question: and the law on the subject
is deemed ambiguous it is seasonable to inquire into
its nterpreta ion Before recting the provision
relating to Cabinet officers, it will conduce to clear
ness to give its history.
The tenure of office bill which prohibits the reno
val of officers by the President without the consent Oh
the Senate, originated in the Senate AS 1t passed
that body Cabinet officers excepted from its op
Grafton. When it was sent down to the House, an
amendment was offered striking out the exception
This was voted down by what would have been tie
vote if Mr.. Alley had not changed his vote from aye
to nay and saved Speaker Colfax the embarrassment
of casting The next day, this vote was recon-
! sdered and the amendment adopted by 81 ayes
against 60 nays. When the bill, as amended, was re-
turned to the Senate for its concurrence that BODY
after debate rejected the House amendment by 2S
nays against II ayes 1t then went back to the House,
which adhered to its amendment and called for
mittee of conference The result of the conference
was the following proyiso, which stands as part
of the law:
"Provided, that the Secretaries Of State, of the
Treasury of War of the Navy Of the Interior, and
the Postmaster General and the Attorney General,
shall hold their Offices respectively during the term OF
the President by whom they have been appointed and
month thereafter subject to removal by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate"
President johnson is understood to hold that this
were appointed BY his predecessor. 1t will not be
difficult to demonstrate that this is the correct inter-
probation.
1t is evident from the circumstances that members
of the Cabinet intended to be put upon differ
en footing from other officers in respect to their re-
movabIity Had it been the design of the law to sub
ect them all to the rule it would have suhced
to strike out the exception i'll the original bill, as the
House proposed and the Senate, by strong majority,
after full discussion, refused to do 1t was argued IN
IL. Nv, efra
out the consequence would be that President
would be compelled to retain the Cabinet of his pre-
decessor whenever the Senate happened to disagree
with him in politics, whereas fairness requires that
every President shall be permitted to select his
confidential advisers. The provso agreed upon in
the conference committee intended to meet this
objection, and must be interpreted with reference to
it, The proviso was a compromise. The House yielded
to the views of the Senate so far as to allow every
President to select his own Cabinet and not compel
him to keep that of his predecessor and the Senate
yielded to the views of the House far as to make
Cabinet officers, appointed bya President, ire
movable till one month after the close of his term
without the consent of the Senate
But question may arise land here it seems to us,
the controversy hinges whether the mere continuance
in Office of predecessors Cabinet operates ap
pontment, and renders the officers rremovable. If
it does Mr. johnson member of his
Cabinet if it does not, he is prohibited from remov-
ing only those whom he himself appointed. Now the
law enaDeS US 10 ueClOe tnS queSuOn WIN absolute
certainty and precision II sweeps away all possibility
of President inheritng the Cabinet of his predeces
sor without fresh appointment by himself and |
confirmation by the Senate. 1t makes the term of
every Cabinet officer expire by law the 4th of
April after the President goes out the 4th of March
They no more serve another day without fresh |
appointment than the President can serve beyond the
4h of March without reelection. The law does not
contemplate airy such thing the continuance of a
predecessors Cabinet by acquescence. The law can
not, of course, be retroactive, and therefore Mr.. Lin
coins appontees continue until Mr.. johnson removes
them. But when he has made appointment him
SELF the officer is irremovablc without the consent of
the Senate until month after the expiration of his
term of Office.
If Mr.. Stanton shoald refuse to resign, and should
dispute the Presidents right to remove him, what
would be the remedy? We suppose the President
would apply to a United States Judge for mandamus
commanding Mr. Stanton, by the authority of the court
to surrender the Office and its archives If he should
refuse to obey the mandamus, the President would
support the authority of the court and GUST him by
force.
We commend the prudence and good Judgment of
the President in making example of Stanton before
meddling with Sheridan. As we remarked on for
mer OCCASION it would be absurd to show extreme re-
sentiment at INSTRUMENTATION in distant Louisiana and
Texas while tamely putting up with insoent contu-
macy in bis own Cabinet under bis very nose On the
grounds of policy we'll dignity, it is better to
make example of Stanton rather than of Sheridan
The Radicals would probably take up Sheridan and
ruin him for President He courts removal as the
greatest stroke Of luck that could befall him. 1t would
be no punishment to aid him in his aspirations for the
Presidency. But Stanton clings to Office as coward
clngs to life He dies without any hope of resurrec-
ton. The Republicans mi h well think of digging
up rotten and running it for the Presidency
as of running Stanton to compensate him for his loss
Of office.
Louisiana Items