Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1868-05-22
Senator Eessenden,s Arpum.,t

tuition giving the President the right to
appoint, and instanced the case of limo
thy Pickering by the elder Adams as an
instance of the constitutional construction
and the practice under the laws. He said
it has been argued that even if this right
of removal by the President may be sup
posed to exist during the recess of the Sen
ate, it is otherwise when that BODY is in
session. He declared himself unable to
see the grounds of this distinction, or to
ind any grounds for this distinction. The
constitution makes no such distinction, as
1t says nothing about removals. FREQUENT
instances have occurred where the Presi-
dent thought proper to remove an officer
at once before sending the name Of his
successor, and prior to the act Of March
I'd, 1867, he never found his right to do SO
seriously questioned He says, Judging
from the short experience we have had I'M
der the law of 1867, the supervisory power
Of the Senate over removals is purely cal
culated to secure a prompt and vigorous
correction of abuses in Office, especially
upon the modern claim that when offices
are of local character the representative
has right to designate the officer, under
which claim this branch of Executive
authority, instead of being lodged where
the Constitution placed it, passes to one
of the Legislative branches of the govern
ment.
He next considers the removal of Mr.
Stanton, and says that before the passage
of the civil tenure-of-ofice act the Presi-
dent had clearly the right to remove him,
and argued that the case of Secretary Stan
ton did not come under that act, because
he had never been appointed by President
johnson, arguing that as he was appointed
by President Lincoln he merely held the
office under sufferance, and was liable to
removal at any time. He concludes his
argument on the subject as follows: As
Mr.. Stanton was appointed to hold during
the pleasure of the President for the
time being, and his tenure was not affect
ed by the act of March I'd, 1867 the Presi-
dent had right to remove him from Office
on the 21st Of sFebruary, 1865, and conse-
quently cannot be held guilty under the
first article, and even if were not satisfied
of the construction given herein of the act
of 1867, [ should still hesitate to convict of
a high misdemeanor for what was done on
the DIST of February, 1868, because it was
the mere issuing OF written order and
and it would be an abuse of power to de-
pose the President on the part of the Sen
ate which could not be justified to the
country or the world. With regard to the
letter of authority to Gen. Thomas, he con-
cludes that as the President had legal
right to remove Mr.. Stanton, he had q
right to designate General Thomas to dis
charge the duties of the office ad Interim
The first article failing, the Sd, 4th, 5th,
9th and Sth must fail with it. Article 9th
is actually disproved by the evidence.
With regard to the tenth article, based
on the speeches of the President in relation
to Congress, the specifications are sutfi-
ciently abolished by proof. They are three
in number, and are extracts from speeches
of the President on different occasions. It
is not pretended that in speaking any of
the words the President violated the consti-
tuition, or any provision of the statute or
common law, either in letter or spirit. If
such uttecance was a misdemeanor, it must
be found in the nature of the words them
selves. It may be remarked that those
words were not ofticial-spoken Of the Con-
gress, and not to it. The words did not in
terms deny that it was constitutional
Congress, or assert that it had no power to
pass laws. He asserted what was true in
point of fact, that it was a Congress of only
a part Of the States. Granting that the
words spoken would seem to imply that he
had doubts, to some extent, of the true
character of that Congress, and tho extent
of its powers, so long as several States were
excluded from representation, he did not,
in fact or In substance, deny its constitu-
tional existence while in all his official
communications with that Congress he has
ever treated it as a constitutional body.
Is there another man in the republic, in
Office or out of office, who had not on that
day d perfect right to say what the Presi-
dent said Is the President alone ex-
Guided from the privilege of expressing his
opinions of the constitution of particular
Congress, and of denouncing it's acts as en-
croachments upon constitutional rights "
and 1.-THE fundamental principles of gov
eminent ?" In process of time there might
possibly be a Congress which would be
justly liable to the same ordinations of a
President. In such a case, is he to remain
silent, and is he forbidden by the constitu-
ton, on pain of removal from office, to
warn the people of the United States of
their danger?
There is nothing in these words to prove
the allegation that the Presidents intent in
speaking of them was to impair and de-
stroy the respect of the people of Congress,
or the laws by it duly and constitutionally
enacted, or to set aside its rightful authority
and powers He has not been able to dis
cover any measure or threats against Con-
gre IS, unless they are found IN the declara-
ton that he would veto their measures
The speeches at Cleveland and St. Louis,
though highly Objectionable in style and
unbecoming President, afford nothing to
Justify the allegation that they were mena-
cling towards Congress or to the laws of the
country.
In considering the eleventh article he
says, again, that he does not consider the
Presidents declaration on the 18th of
August, 1866 as fairly liable to the con-
struction there put upon it, and repeated in
this article. There were no such words
said, nor can they be fairly implied. The
words were that it WAS not a Congress of
the United States, but only a part of the
States. Taken literally, these words were
true But q Congress of a part Of the
States may be constitutional Congress,
capable of passing valid laws, and as such
the President has uniformly recognized
the thirty ninth Congress. The DECLARE
ton being perfectly susceptible Of an in
nocent meaning, and all his official acts
being consistent with that meaning, it
would be unjust to suppose different one,
which he did not express.
After considering other phases pre-
scented by tho managers, Mr.. Fessenden
concludes