The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-03-27
Office law, passed March I'd, 1867, by consti-
t,tinnal majority of Congress-, as follows:

"That any person holding any civil Office to
which he has been appointed by and with th o
advice 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 and shall be entitled to hold
like manner appointed and duly qualified, ex-
cept as herein otherwise provided. Provided
that the Secretary of State, Of the Treasury,
of War. of the Navy, and Of the Interior, the
Postmaster-General and the Attorney-Gene-
raj, shall hold their offices respectively, and
during the term Of the President by whom
they may have been appointed, and for one
with the advice and consent Of the Senate"
That the respondent was also aware that
this act was understood and intended to be an
expression of the opinion of Congress that the
mower to remove executive officers for cause
might by law be taken from the President and
vested tin him and the Senate jointly, and al.
though this respondent had arrived at and still
retained the opinion above expressed and
verify believed, as he still believes, that the
said first section Of the lsst mentioned act was
and is wholly imperative and void, by reason
of it's conflict with the Constitution of the Uni
ted States: vet, inasmuch as the same had been
enacted by the constitutional majority In each
of the two Houses Of that Congress. this re-
spondent considered it to he proper to examine
said Stanton, on which twas this respondents
duty to act, was within or without the terms Of
| that first section Of the act, or, il untrue,
whether the President had not the power, ac-
cording to the terms of the act, to remove the
said Stanton from the office Of Secretary for
the Department OF War, and having, in his ca
pacity of President of the United States, SO e1-
Chat the case of the said Stanton and his tenure
| oF of3ce were not affected by the first section
of the last named act.
That although case thus existed, calling
for the exercise OF the executive power OF re-
moyal, under the constitution, and believing
that Mr.. Stanton's case was not affected by the
first section of the Tenure-of- Office act, the
respondent desired, If possible, to avoid any
question of the construction and effect OF that
law, and also the broader question of the ex-
ecutive power conferred on the President by
the constitution to remove the principal officer
OF one of the executive departments that in
these questions Of difference between the ex-
ecutive and legislative departments Of the gov
ernment, we desire that they should be IN some
proper way submitted to the Judicial depart
ment entrusted by the constitution with the
duty OF determining finally the construction
and effect Of all acts Of Congress, and compar-
ing them with the costitution itself, with
view of pronounciug them imperative when
found in conflict with that fundamental law
which the people have enacted for the govern
ment OF all their servants--and to these ends:
First, that through the ACTION OF the Senate
of the United States, the absolute duty Of the
President TO substitute some fit person in place
OF Mr. Stanton, az one OF his advisers, and as
a. principal subordinate officer whose official
conduct he was responsible for. and had law
full right to control, might. ii possible, be
accomplished without the necessity OF raising
any one Of the questions aforesaid; and second,
H.. l,,k, ho no or
that these questions, or such OF them as might
necessarily arise, should be judiciflly deter
mined; and for no other end or purpose this
respondent, as President of the United States,
on the 18th day Of August, 1867, seven days
after the reception Of the letter Of the said
Stanton of the 5th OF August, hereinbefore
stated, did issue to the said Stanton the order
ment to General Grant, Secretary Of War dd
interim, to which the said Stanton yielded
under protest to superior force" Further,
that the respondent believes that the execu-
tive power Of removal conhded to him by the
constitution includes the power of suspension
from Office at the pleasure of the President,
and that this respondent by the order se asGre-
not until the next meeting Of the Senate, or
until the Senate shall have acted upon the
case, but by force Of the power and authority
vested in him by the Constitution and laws OF
the United States, indefinitely and at the
pleasure of the President; and the order, in
Form aforesaid, was made known to the Senate
of the United States on the 18th day OF De-
cember, A. D. 1867.
That by his order of August 18th, 1867, the
respondent authorized General Grant to per-
form the duty Of Secretary Of War ad interim
according to law-not until the next meeting
of the Senate, and until the Senate should
act on the case, but at the pleasure Of the
President, subject only to the limitation of
six months, and copy OF the last named order
was made known to the Senate OF the United
States on the 18th day Of December, A. d.
1867 and in pursuance of the design and in
tention aforesaid, if it should become neces-
sary to submit the said question to judicial
determination, this respondent, at or near
the date of the last mentioned order, did
make known such his purpose to obtain judi
cial decision.
That after the Presidents message to Con-
gress December 18th, 1867, making known the
order above cited, the President was compelled
either to allow the said Stanton to resume the
said Office and remain therein, contrary to the
settled convictions of the President respecting
the powers confded to him and the duties re-
uuired Of him by the constitution OF the Uni
ted States; and contrary to the opinion that
the first section of the Tenure OF Office act did
not affect the case Of the said Stanton, and
contrary to the fixed belief OF the President
that he could no longer advise with or trust, or
be responsible for the said Stanton in the Office
of the said Secretary for the Department OF
War, or else he was compelled to take such
steps as might, in the judgment OF the Presl-
dent. be lawful and necessary to raise for jul
dicial decision the question affecting the law
full right OF the said Stanton to resume the
said Office. or the power of the said Stanton to
persist in refusing to quit the said Office if he
should persist IN actually refusing to quit the
same, and to this end, and tG this end only,
this respondent, on the 21st day OF February,
1868, issued the order for the removal Of said
Stanton in the said first article mentioned and
set forth, and the order authorized the said
Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secretary OF War ad
anter1n in the said second article set forth.
And this respondent, proceeding to answer
specifically each substantive allegation in the
said first article, says he denies that the said
Stanton, on the 21st day of February, 1861, was
lawfully in possession Of tue said Office of Sec
retarv for the Department OF War. HE denies
that the said Stanton, On the day last mention
ed, was lawfully entitled to hold the said Office
against the will of the President OF the United
States. BE denies that the said order for the
removal of the said Stanton was unlawfullv is
sued. He denies that said order was issued
with intent to violate the act entitled SAN act
to regulate the tenure Of certain civil Offices"
He denies that the said order was a violation
of the last mentioned act. He denies that the
said order was violation OF the Constitute
of the United States, or OF any law thereof, or
of his oath of Office. He denies that the said
order was issued with any intent 10 violate the
constitution of the United States, or any law
thereof, or this respondents oath Of Office, and
he respectfully but earnestly insists that not
only was it issued BY him in the performance
of what he believed to be an imperative official