The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1868-05-05
'tfum vns New York Tribune, Apfil 2s1


speech, manifests that chief talent Of debater
which has made him the leader of the House =
the ability TO seize upon the determining facts
the pivotal points, Of the question under con-
sideration, and to present them with force
that is logic ITSELF and simplicity that is above
eloquence.
His analysis of the question whether Mr..
Stanton was included in the Tenure-of Office
act presents the point so clearly that we smile
Involuntary at the idea that it should ever
have escaped the notice of any person who read
the act. It is briefly as follows: The first
clause of the act declares that all officers what
soever shall hold their offices until the Senate
shall consent to their removal, except those
mentioned in the second clause. The second
clause provides that members of the Cabinet
shall hold their Offices during the term of the
President BY whom they were appointed. and
one month thereafter, unless they are sooner
removed with the consent of the Senate.
Now, the first and the second clause together
include all officers whatsoever. If Mr.. Stan>
ton, as argued by the Presidents counsel, is
not included in the second or excepting clause,
he is included in the first or compromising
clause. Getting him out of the second clause
into the first is "out Of the fying>pan into the
fire." In the language of Mr.. Stevens:
1.-THE first section provides that every per-
son holding civil Office, who has been appoin-
ted with the advice and consent of the Senate,
and every person that hereafter shall be appoin>
ted to any such Office, shall be entitled to hold
such Office until . successor shall have been
in like manner appointed and duly qualified,
except as herein otherwise provided. Then
comes the proviso which the DEFENDANTS coun-
sci says does not embrace Mr.. Stanton, be-
cause he was not appointed by the President
in whose term he was removed. If he was
not embraced in the proviso, then he was no.
where specially provided for, and was conse-
section which declares that every person hold
ing any civil office not otherwise provided for,
comes within the provisions ofthis act.
This point, we think, is unanswerable, and
ends the discussion as to whether Secretary
Stanton is embraced in the law. Every Off
Ger appointed with the advice and consent of
the Senate is embraced in it.
NAI. OtCVCnS ucAt teAliuS dL2uWSIt Is IOuuO
in the letter of the President to the Secretary
Of the Treasury. notifying him of the suspen>
sion of Mr.. Stanton, Gin compliance" as the
President states in his letter, with the re-
rluirements of the act entitled IAN act to reg
ulate the tenure of certain civil Offices"
Here we have the written official acknowl>
! dgement of the President himself, not only of
his obligation to obey the Tenure of-Ofice act,
f,ut Of the fact that it applies to and governs
: he case of Secretary Stanton. He recognized
he same fact also in his order suspending
Stanton, proceeding authorized only by that
! aw, and in his message communicating to the
Senate the reasons for his suspension. Well
/, nay Mr.. Stevens declare: allow necessary
/, or a man either to have good conscience or
b good memory!'-that if he should either
boy the law or attempt to defy it, that he
l'hould be able to remember whether he has
not recognized its validity!
Mr.. Stevens then, with crushing force con-
trasts the above confession of his obligation
to obey this law, with his subsequent celebra-
which he states that the General knew "that
the President was DESTROYS of keeping Mr..
Stanton out Of office, whether sustained in his
suspension or not.'' In this letter he stated
that had he known that Gen. Grant " ould not
cooperate in keeping Stanton out of Office
whether the Senate sustained him or not, he
would have appointed some one else in the
place of Grant. Here the President, after
acknowledging that Stanton was within the
terms of the Tenure of Office law, and conse-
quently could not be removed without consent
of the Senate, nor suspended after they had
restored him, shows not only that he had at
tempted to seduce and bully Gen. Grant into
aiding him to keep Mr.. Stanton out of the Office
after the Senate had voted to restore him. but
declares that he would have removed Grant
had he known that the latter would have re-
fused to join him in his disobedience. He
moreover abuses the patriotic and clear>headed
General, for obeying the law, in terms of foul
insult and vili6cation which he has never
since his apostacy, applied to a rebel or trail
tor. There is more than illegality in such in.
consistency. There are the hypocrisy and
scoundrelism Of desperate who has but one
definite purpose or intent, viz, to evade, vic
late. or defy the law, and who cares not, 81
long as he gets past it, whether he drives ovel
it, around it, or through it.
Mr.. Stevens, with his large knowledge
human nature, finds an Authority more forcbl'
than could be derived from musty books, in thu
thrice repeated votes Of more than two>third
| of the Senators themselves, in favor Of tn
| Tenure>of> Office law, before it was passed
added to which was fourth vote Of the sam
Senators, restoring Mr.. Stanton to Office afte
the President had suspended him, followed still
by fifth vote of the same Senators for the res
olution condemning the removal of Stanton AM
the appointment of Thomas, as unlawful acts.
| Mr.. Stevens says truly, that any Senate
| who now, without cause, with no fact devel