The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-05-24

I. I. axtramely doubtful whether tbe ia
ners ~ the Constitution Intended 20 conner
g ~ norer On the President to make reno'
sela during ire recess. The language usea,
80 6ll mn vacancies which may naPPeh,
seams to imply the contrary. Ana tnsy SEEN
% have carefully provided seainsI, .as % -
sumption Of this perez MINER Ins p'sa ", f.nu
cessi,y, to protect the public in1efss's 'sOn
,,n-nytb, officers during therecess, ny au.hoi-
No.. prss;dsnt to convene the Senate in
800 Ut. sass;on whenever In lis judgement me
hl;a;atarests require it, thus enabling nim
~ ii times 10 submit the question OF charges
10 the Judgment Of that body ..,,
Rut removals have been made IN the CYL,
service during the recess OF the sena,e p slt
fHe PfEsida1ix This. poTsr under zoe Yen,
~. 80 .,,- ,,eea dntfne the whole peraed
s. -..sir questioned by the ablest statesmen
= ga ;,r;sis Inc practice has, nevertheless,
''h.a;aad No law existed until recently pro-
i,;h;,;ng i. Il may, therefore, be eonceded
~ ss,tIed that the President may, in the abb
- OF law TO the contrary, during the. re-.
esss nj the Senate make removals from oftiee
II il. however. equally well settled BY prece-
dent sthat the President cannot make reno
rals, except in pursuance Of law, during the
session, otherwise ihsn by appointments 81
ancestors. TO be made By and with the az
vice and consent of the Senate; aud that IN
making removals in the military service ne
must follow themode indicated in the srneies
Of war and army regulations eslsolishsa ey
law.
Tb;. constructor has been s6unifdrm as 10
render il impossible for tie Learned counsel
for the President during this protracsed trlal
n nroauce even one well authenticated case
Ia the contrary. The case cited By them OF
he removal Of Timothy Pickering, Secretary
Of State. BIZ the elder Adams, is the only one
Isl ich they claim 10 be an exception, ana
IN that case the letter removing Mr. fiekef-
inc and the Presidents message nominating
A. Marshall As bis successor beFr the same
ds,a But, II this case were admitted to be
on sxcention 10 the general fulal it wonld VI
ol.te ali established principles OF correct
reasoning to assume that one exceptional
case establishes The true construction OF the
Constitution. il haing in direct conflict with
the Otherwise uniform practice, extending
over the entire period Of the history Of the
Government.
! therefore conclnde that Andrew Iehuson,
President, violated the Constitution OF the
United States sud nis oath oil Office, "a issa-
ing his order. February 81, 1885, the Senate
he, 10 in session. removing Edwin N. Stan
ton. Secretary of trio Departments OF War,
=
high misdemeanorin Office as charged in this
article OF Impeachment, even the law
regulating the tenure Of certain civil of
fieet,u- approved March 2, 1857 had never
been enacted.
BufI am unable to perceive |sny serious
ambiguity in that statute. The authorities
all. agree that it is legitimate in constituting
any apparently obscure passage in the text OF
a new iaw 10 ascertain. First. The old law
or usage. Secondly, The evil or matter of
conaolaint. Thirdly The remedy proposed
in the new law. Nov let rs hpply these
rules to the statute Of March 2, 1851
First. Under the old law or usage the
President had the right, as we have seen, to
make removals at will during the recess Of
the Senate.
Secondly. The evil or subject matter Of
omplaint was that the Pr sident, nov ar
raiened at your bar, had been during the
previous recess Of he Senate. removing null
ttudes of faithful officers from their respec-
tyeposts Of duty. and appointing Enthusiastically
successors for purely partisan purposes, 10
aid HIM in making war on thu measures
sdopted by Congress TO secure the res,ora.
lion Of peace, harmony, and good govern
s,ent in The recently iasurrectinnary States
Thirdly. The remedy proposed was to fix
BY law the tenure Of civil Offices and regulate
the manner Of removals, "a had been done
from the beginning IN relation to military
officers. so as to prevent the President from
making removals al discretion, even during
the recess, without the approval bf the Sen
ate Hence the FIRST section etiacts THAT
every person holding any civil Office
to which he has been appointed BY
aud with the aivice and consent OF
the Senate, and every person who shall
hereafter be appointed to any such office, and
shall become duly qualified TO act therein, is
ard shall be entitled to hold such office until
a successor shall have been in like manner
aupointed and duiy qualified except as herein
otherwise provided Fforiaei, That the Sec
ire,aries of State, OF The Treasury, of War.
Of The Navy, and Of the Interior, tie POST
master General, and The Attorney General
shall aold their Offices esnectiyely for ard
during the term OF the President by whom
they may have been appointed, and for one
mehth thereafter, subject to removal by and
With the advice aud consent Of the Senate
Does It effect the objects proposed ? 1t evil
dentlr embraces all existing civil officers ap
pointed by the President By and with the ad
Wee and consent of the Senate. as well as all
Who rnay hereafter be appointed. II is evi
aenls not its purpose to extend the legal
tern OF service Of any OF them, for 81 c.isn
four provides . that nothing in this set con-
FAMED shall he construed To extend the term
OF any Office the duration of which is fixed
by law But its intent is clearly tvo-fold
First TO prohibit removals; secondly, 10 limit
the terms of service. The prohibition to re-
move evidently applies 10 all. The limita
ton of the term is applied to The Secretaries
of State, of the Treasury. of War, OF the
Navy, of the Interior, the Postmaster Gen
eral, and the Attorney General, aud none
a!xn. L
The section provides that every civil officer
appointed By the President, with the approval
Of the Senate, shall hold his office until his
successor shall be in like manner appointed !;
that is, no removal shall take place except
by the appointment, with the concur
renee of the Senate, OF SUCCESSOR pro.
vided, however, that the offices Of heads
of departments shall terminate BY operas
ton of law in me month after the ezp;ra.
tiou Of the Presidential term The assn mp
ton that any of the seven officers were in.
tended to be excepted ort of the general pro-
hibiiion Of removal at the will OF, The Presi,
dent alone, 10 clearly inconsistent with the
last clause of the proviso which DECLARES that
those seven officers shall also be .subiect 70
removal by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate For, If it was in fact, as
/ commended, the intent OF this proviso to ex.
cept any Of these officers from the general
prohibition TO remove By the President alone.
why should it confer the authority TO remove
them with the concurrence Of the Senate?
The learned casuistry to which We have
listened. over the construction Of the phrase
tern of the President by whom they NAV
have been appointed has, according TO nv
apprehension. no application to the vital point
in this conference.-the prohibition OF re-
moyal. 1t relates to the limitation of the
term Of service, and nothing else
| have not been able TO perceive ANYTHING
in the legislative history attending The pas.l
sage OF this act inconsistent with this con-
slrnction. 1t is Substantially this. The SeH-a
ale passed the bill prohibiting the removal 81
Ill civil officers except the heads Of depart.
lneuts. The House struck ont the exception.
The Senate declined to concur. The House
insisted. The bill was then1sent to q Joint
committee OF conference Of the two houses.
They proposed compromise the House
Yielding something and the Senate Welding
something. They finally agreed that the PRO.
hibtion OF removals by the President At dis.
erosion should apply to all, including heads
Of Departments, Int that the termination Of
The period Of service Of the latter should lie |
liked at one month after the close Of each
Presidential term They so reported, and |
heir report was adopted BY both houses.