New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-25
EUF WBLSKY REVENUES AND THE TENURE
~N0 OROFFICE ACT
.ro THE HON. VIM. NJ. EvARrs.

NAV ,ob oven good government is burdensome, |
re intelligent OF the citizens, and particularly 'i0
,vyers OF the country recognize III INC aDii'! Fy
,', ~ the official head of the profession the most
M" ,.o ., the conditions Of revenue REFORM ana the |
~. ,boritatlye OF the restraints upon ilusory OF ma
Si.,or, accusation. 10 inc AV'oinoS "'
~, ~ The President the laws have COM
NM, .Ho enforcement, through his subordinates
eraI iudieia districts in the last civil resort the
IA Of the United States. Upon the prepossessons
80. Inch he contempates the growing exposures; the
nt in witch he accepts his great advisory response
htv and the legal doctrines upon which he proposes 10
10, "a the chief officer on such an OCCASION depend
snectfuly submit result which, one way or another
must deeply the times, and characterize nm III MS
toyv above or below all his predecessors in Office.
Those considerations induce me 10 attempt defereh
ta communication TO you, Sir Of the points OF speca
sOcituIc which suppose TO have arisen III the minus VI
such OF your professional brethren as have recently gwen
this subject conscientious reflection. Mere abstract ex
pressons Of principle whatever FORM can never ap
pear unpertinen any Official however exalted they
a. occasion, and countenanced by the people
First ought statute, in derogation of hitherto
power and of acknowledged doubtful con
sttutOnaty to receive liberal OF a construction
Second Ought any statute Of the United states be con-
strued to vest right TO Office otherwise than exeu-
siyely for the benefit of the publci
Third: If the public right to useful incumbent. and
the ncumbents right to the public Office conflict, which.
in the opinion Of an American lawyer ought TO yield
Fourth II an incumbents integrity is seriously i'm.
pugned that only the verdict OF jury the facts could
determine whether he is honest not is he useful IN
eumbeut OF object
Pinh Would 1t be good administration to appoint
person IN such a situations Would upright lawyer,
I'm his private practice select such person trustee OF
hls clients interests Is there distinctOn-eXeep
on the odOus doctrine Of private estate In public
office superior to the public interest for the sake OF
which it created-between the case of an ap
plicant and that Of an Incumbent
sinh II statute provides that when any officer shall
be shown by evidence satisfactory to the President TO
lie guilty OF misconduct in office, crime or for any
reaaon shall become incapable, legally dis
uualfad to perform its duties" the President may sus
pend him. &C. &C. is the provision TO be eassed Win the
rrmna code, construed against the public and in favor
bf the accused administered after the manner Of crIn
nal ADJUDICATION and subject TO the principle Of conclu
sive presumption Of innocence while reasonable doubt
SemaInsi
Serenfh: Under the provision quoted, does the question
Oi legal guilt innocence arsef II 1t does 10y what
constitutional may citizen be arragned' rled
md possibly condemned without indictment, judge jury
counsel spectators or does the statute contemplate
The only other Of criminal prosecution, that OF i'm
feaohment II So has the trial Of mpeachments passed
and vested IN the President by consrue
ton OF the cited II the statute does not involve
"a trial for legal crime should the executive proceedings
under it conform to the rules Of criminal adjudication,
even the legal right Of the respondent to the office was
Involved in the ssuei
Fighth. Il suspension Of the functions OF public
want the thing removal from his offce Has he,
legally speaking, any fright" at ALL except in common
with his fellow citizens az large in the question whether
his responsible superiors shall suspend his functions
Must the President, under this law, either brand man
criminal without doubt, or else keep an Office flied
by criminal with a doubt in his favor
Ninth: Is It legally morally just that judgment Of
suspension should upar ascerained guilt Is consist
ent with public good that who probably guilty
should continue public agents lest the substitution
OF unsupported persons should disgrace themi II the
quoted above from the statute was ia bylaw Of
a corporation would their counsel advise the head Of the
conc ern 20 retain Oh active duty suspected Of
embezzement he should be able TO ascertain upon
principles criminal evidence the certain guilt Of the
officer beyond all reasonable Doubt Is the United states
Hess TO the paramount interest OF State
end peoplei
Tenth: What correspondence ought TO exist between
evidence satisfactory executive officer and that
which should be satisfactory" 20 a COURT When ma
fions are divided twain, dynases depOsed, and en-
Sres founded. by solemn treaty do the contracting SOW
ereigns ascertain facts through dispositions OF witnesses
DO generals the field OF require reports Of their
officers 10 beicertied by notary public Do negotia
1Ions gravest diplomacy ignore all facts not found
Ny Iuries ascerlaned upon similar principles Why
mott Is ii less certainty suiccs for the most
snomentOus OF human affairs than for the most nconsid
cradle matter Of judicial eOgnizance. or is because the
mature OF executive Judgment requires the natural rather
shan the legal method of veriheanon OF its premises
Eievcfh: The statute provides that when officer
W
duct In Office or crime" &C Could the President pro
1ounce any officer guilty Of "crme" In the Of this
satutef II the officer had been duly convicted OF crime
ydence OF that conviction could alOnebe satisfactory 70
1h President but the statute speaks Of misconduct IN
Office a. different thing from Crime Is not that df
ference coipcident with this, that criminal charge
might not DO susceptible Of proof beyond doubt 10
he tucialy punishable and yet might be established TO
Executive apprehension by preponderance OF evidence
T,efNb il the kind OF evidence on which the appoint
Inr power customariy selects public agents competent
and sufficient evidence in the premises IL II L. what
other KIND and degree Of evidence does the statute
mean when II provides for suspendiDg officer
dence satisfactory" the nominating power What Is
The meaning IN the paragraph OF the statute Of the
ors with the evidence and re0sonSTfor his action in
Lhe Gaze" &c
TEiee1M Has your attention been drawn TO the pro
ys,u IA the Tenure act, that though incumbent be
sc,n,tv Innocent OF crime and OF all official mscon-
duc and not legally disqualified that yet he may become
from some other incapable" 10 perform the
duties Of his Office and that he be suspended by the
President although for such case nothing al all is said OF
evi5euceg MAY not the President therefore, suspend
any officer that he may think upon any good evidence,
or upon no tangible evidence has become incapable Of
duo performance Of duty. provided only he may have
such reasons for his action admit Of beng communi
Gated o the Senate
Thirteenth: Is II not very good reason for detaching
citizen from the public business, that IL has become an
open aud serious public question whether he Is trust
worthy even though IL may possibly turn out that he
Isl
ITr>~r. +, it not good law under the Constitution
and Civil Tenure act that IN this country no man can
acquire In or about any public Office any right except
what operates through him for the sole and exclusive
sake Of the public interest in such ODcei
81 lt,ry aaU he