Nebraska advertiser., 1868-07-16

/ the last hour of his previous Term ttle
Secretary must be regarded in the llgllt
of one Of his original appointments ana
retire accordingly.
By every reasonable rule of con-
struetion it seems perfectly plain that
Mr.. Stanton has not been removed py
| force of the civiI-tenure act, and con-
seuuentIy is entitled to it's protection,
which was accorded to him by the
Senate when they restored him susp-
ension by their vote of January l3, 1865.
Having attempted to accomplish thagi
! independent of the Senate, which ne
| failed to secure when admitting the
constitutionality of the act by yielding
to it's provision for suspensions, the
President has certainly been guilty, -
charged in the first article, OF a"hlgh
misdemeanor in Office.
The plea which he makes in his ans
wer, that he does not believe theact of
March 3, 1867, constitutional, cannot
avail him, since, when Congress passed
! the act and laid it before him for his
| signature, he having vetoed it, it was
| then passed over the veto by three
! fourths ofeaeh branch of OfCOngress-the
provision ofthe Constitution being that
a bill passed by two thirds of each
| House over the Presidents veto "shall
| become a law" Having thus become
a law, he had no discretion but to en-
force it as such; and by disregarding
| it merited all the penalties thus incurred
He is not to be shielded behind the
opinions of his Cabinet, although they
may have advised him to disregard the
law, since their only business is to en-
force and obey the laws governing their
several Departments, and neither to
claim or exercise judicial functions.
The plea of innocent intentions is
certainly not to vindicate him for hav-
ing violated law, for every criminal
would be able to plead justifiable mot
ives in extenuatiOn of punishment,
till every law was broken and every
barrier of safety swept aside.
The strongest possible case that can
be stated would be that of a Senator
who Nigh have declared his belief of
the unconstitutiOnality of the act
of March 2, 1867, before its passage over
the veto, and now being called upon to
decide upon the right of President to
disregard the provisions of this same
act. I hold that he would be bound by
his oath of office to demand of the
President obedience to it's provisions
until such time as it should be repealed
by Congress or annulled by the decis-
ion of court of competent jurisdiction.
The President must take care that the
laws are faithfully executed.
tits very astonishing that the Presi-
dent should deny that Mr.. Stanton is
protected in office by the Givil-tenure
act, after having suspended him from
office under that act on the 18th of
August, 1867, and having reported
him to the Senate under the same act
as being legal suspended, and having,
under a special provision of the same
act, notified the Secretary ofthe Treas
ury of his action in the premises; for
unless he was legally Secretary of War
he was not subject to such suspension.
1t has been argued that as Mr.. STAN
ton has continued to occupy the War
Office, and the removal has not been
entirely completed, the penalty for re-
mOval cannot attach; but Mr.. Johnson
receives Gen. Thomas as Sec. of War
at his Cabinet meetings, thus affirm
ing his belief that Thomas is entitled
to be accredited as such. 1t shOuldbe
remembered, in this connection, that
it is high misdemeanOr to attempt to
do an act which is a misdemeanOr.
The removal of Mr.. Stanton against
law would be a high misdemeanor,
and a persistent effort in that direction,
issuing orders, Withdrawing associa-
ton from him, and accrediting another
does, in my opinion, constitute high
mlSdemeanOr.
BY article two he stands charged,
during the session of the Senate, with
having issued a letter of authority to
Lorenzo Thomas, authorizing him
and commanding him to assume and
exercise the functions of the Depart
ment of War, without the advice and
consent Ofthe Senate, which is charged
to have been in violation of the express
letter of the Constitution and of the
act of March 2, 1867.
Ofhis power to appoint the Constit-
utiOn, article two, section two says:
'fFIe shall nominate. and by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate shall ap-
point"
In this case he claimed vacancy to
which he might appoint independent
of the Senate, while the Constitution
affirms that the President shall have
power to fill up all vacancies that NAV
happen during ''the recess of the Sen
ate, " not during its session.
1t is only necessary to quote the
charge, the text of the Constitution.
and his own admission in his answer,
that he ''did issue and deliver the
writing as set fourth in said second
article, in order to establish the COM
mission of an unconstitutional act"
But the language of the act of March
2, 1867, is equally explicit. 1t affirms
in section six
THAT every removal, appointment,
or employment made, had or exercised
contrary to the provisions of this act,
/ the making, sealing, cOuntersigning,
or issuing of any commission or letter
Of authority for or in respect to any
such appointment or employment,
shall be deemed, and are hereby de-
clared to be, misdemeanors; and upon
trial and conviction thereof every pOr-
son guilty thereof shall be punished
by fine not exceeding SO, 900, or by
imprisonmentnot exceeding five years
or both said punishments, in the dis
cretiOn of the court"
IfMr. Stanton was protected by the
first clause of section one, the issuing
of the letter to Thomas drew upon the
author the penalty; but if he was COW
cred by the prOviso, the vacancy had
nothappened and the consequence was
the same. And it the President, dur
ing session of the Senate, can remove
one officer and appoint ad interim, so
may remOveany or all, and thus usurp
Departments and offices, while the
people seek in vain for the restraining
and supervising power Of a PROSTATE
and isulted tribunal.
The first article, affirming the illegal
removal of Secretary Stanton; the
second, charging the illegal issue OF
| theauthOrity to Thomas, and the third,
affirming ad interim appointment OF
General Thomas, admitted as facts and
established by evidence are the found
atiOns of the whole impeachment sup
erstTucture.
The fourth, relative to an unlawful
conspiracy with respect to intimidat-
ing the Secretary of War; the fifth
affirming accumulation to prevent the
execution of law; the sixth, charg-
| ing conspiracy to seize and possess
the property of tho War Department
in violation of an act of 1851; the sew