The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-05-08

| Again referring 10 lnG Olu law CI6d-
| ting the Office, Mr.. G.. read to show
that the original bill was enacted by
the casting vote of John Adams, and
that he clearly recognized the Presi-
dents power of removal Of an incum-
bent of the office at his pleasure. If
he was right in his view that Mr.. STAN
ton was not covered by law, and that
the law of 1889 was in force, then what
! becomes of the first eight articles Of
impeachment? Take out the single
question of the power Of the removal
Of Stanton from the eight articles, and
| they have no other support. Suppose
! Mr.. Stanton is within the Tenure of
| Office act. What then? Why the
! question is, whether the President was
guilty for removing him when he hon
estIy believed that Mr.. StantOn's case
did not come within the terms of the
act. This is not exactly a question OF
the constitutionality of this law, but it
is a question of the construction of the
act, and in this Senate, among these
| intelligent Senators themselves, there
is a diversity of opinion relative to the
construction of that act. n law Of
doubtful construction as it is, yet if the
President construed it differently from
| the Senate, he has been guilty Of no
crime and of no misdemeanor. 1t was
| in evidence before you, Senators, that
! at Cabinet meeting the subject was
discussed, and the very question Of
! construction came up, and the PreSi-
! dent and his Cabinet all agreed upon
the construction. But suppose the law
does apply to Mr.. Stanton, the ques-
ton still arises whether the conduct Of
! the President was criminal. He did
not propose to argue now the cOnstitu-
tionality Of the law, but he would in
quire whether in the present aspect of
the case the President was guiltless of
criminality in removing Mr.. Stanton.
| He started from the point that the
question was at least doubtful. Our
Government has been divided into
three departments, each independent
of the other, and no one department is
! responsible to the other. All this is
clearly set out in the Constitution. At
the head of the Executive Department
! the President of the United States
! stands, and is sworn to protect and de-
! fend the Constitution of the United
| States. This is not an oath merely to
| execute the laws for laws are not NAM
| ed. Of all the officers of the Govern
ment the oath to protect, preserve and
| defend the Constitution of the United
| States is administered to the President
alone. In all doubts, in all difficulties,
! in all trials he must look alone to the
| Constitution of the United States. The
/ honorable Manager Boutwell, said that
the President was only the executive
officer of Congress but he Mr.. GrOes-
beck did not so interpret the COnsti-
tuition. The President was not the
mere executive officer of Congress, but
he is the head of one Of the great CO.
ordinate branches of the Government.
Upon this question he took direct is
sue with all that the honorable mana
ger had said. He here quoted from
Mr.. Boutwell's remarks upon this sub
| iect, and said the doctrine then enunci-
ated was the last Congressional theory
he had heard. If a law be declared by
the Supreme Court unconstitutional,
the President dares not execute one jOt
or title of it, and if he executes that
! law afterwards he violates that higher
law, the Constitution of the United
| States. This then explodes Mr.. Bout
Wells theory that the President must
execute all laws. Furthermore, if law
is passed manifestly unconstitutional,
| the President is not bound to execute
| that law, and need not await a decision
| of the Supreme Court. To follow the
Constitution is the paramount duty Of
the President, and to protect the in
! tegrity of his department is also a du-
! ty.
| After some further remarks upon
| IlllS DOlHl, NII' W. C6tlNt ilC w OuiNl HO"
proceed to note the question, what
was the duty of the President in con-
sideration of the state of the case, and
what was the condition of the question
at the time this removal was affected.
How stands the judicial question :?
! We have no direct opinion upon this
case, but we have decisions of the Su-
preme Court bearing upon the points
presented in the Tenure of Office act, and
these decisions he would now refer to-
! He then read decision made in 1889
in relation to the power of appoint
ment and removal, and which declared
that the power of removal was vested
alone in the President, although the
appointment was made with the adj
vice and consent of the Senate. In this
connection Mr.. G. quoted from a de-
cision previously rendered by Chief
Justice Marshall upon this subject of
appointment and removal. He also
referred to the opinion of Chancellor
Kent, who, in treating of the act of II
80, held that the power of removal was
solely in the President, and all these
showed that, doubtful as this question
was, it had been practically passed up
on. He referred then to the initiatory
steps taken by the fathers of the coun-
trV to have the rights and powers of