The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1868-06-19
Impeaehmsa. Of tho President.
r, 1'F % PI ~ 10 ~
~ ~ rsH.' r7.i'-o- l' iuwr. rI.m a
mr.. MORRILL,, or MAINE.
m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
'r''r' 10 MAY II, 1858.
O p Il q ~


m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE,
'T''G' Ia go MAY II, 1858. n ''.'
Amer giving o synopsis Of the Impeachment
Articles. Senator MonhIIt said r ~.
The question arising under these article
tsuurs-of-ofics sct b In conflict With the Con
stitution Of the United States, and the cass Q
Mr.. Stanton was affected By Il.
These are understood TO be the grounds upol
which the counsel for the President place th
defence Of TO these articles, and that upon whic
opinion divides In the Senate. 1.'f
Il tho tenure-of.offioe cot unconstitutional
and Is Mr.. Stanton embraced In its provision
% ~ to Be protected by Il. .,E
Al 10 the first proposition % between tn
Senate and tho President, tits no new question
and Il Il difhoult to perceive bow II can proper
y be regarded by either - an open question
The aot had been fully considered when u va
first enacted In the Senate, Was rcconsidered Of
ter Il was returned BY the President with hi
objections fully stated, and again passed viii
that unanimity necessary 70 give II the force
law, his objections 10 the contrary notwith
standing, and calculated to leave little doubt o.
to the confidence with which the Senate held IL
opinions. o.,
: The legislative and executive precedents ant
practice IN our history touching the power o.
the President to remove from office. relied upor
by him % authoritative Interpretation OF thu
Constitution, were known and familiar 70 Con
gress OF the time. II is not suggested that the
aot Was hastily or inconsiderately passed, as II
will not be doubted that Congress had, In th.
recent examples Of the exercise Of this power
by the Executive, abundant opportunity oi
judging Of the eXpelieney Of further contin.
unsnce OF this practice.
The binding fOroe OF this practice OF removal
blythe President rests upon the Interpretation
Il il not insisted that this Interpretation BY
that Congress was authoritative and conclusive
upon sucossdlpG Cougrssscs, and II is admitted
that tho extent Of its authority Is as precedent
only. The question was therefore open to fur
thef legislative regulation, and the practices
which had obtained under the sot Of 1889 could
properly and should necessarily be modified OF
reversed. as experience should dictate that the
public interests demanded. Tho Congress o
1867, Il will not be denied, had all the power
over the subject that the Congress OF l7so Il
supposed to have had.
Besides Il Is we'll known that the Congress o
i7S0 were far from having been unanimous ir
their opinions and action. One branch wa,
equally divided upon the measure. and II hnsl.
ly passed by the casting vote OF the presiding
officer aud that from that time to the date
of the cot In question the Interpretation o
the first Congress had been repeatedly the sub.
ject Of grave debate In Congress, and was be-
lieved by the most eminent ut our statesmen,
jurists, aud commentators upon the Constitu-
tion, to be unsound.
Indeed, the President 10 not understood to
invoke the Senate now to declare void for con.
fict with the Constitution . law which had 50
recently received It's sanction and that sfter his
objections to Il had been fully considered. but
that the argument presented Is rather In ex-
!enuatlon OF his refusal to obey and enforce Il.
For the purpose OF these proceedings, the aot
Ia question may properly and must necessarily
be regarded as valid. unless, Indeed, II should
be deemed advisable that Congress should re-
peal al laws the validity OF which may be ques.
toned by the President. which he may deem
inexpedient, or to which he does not yield o
willing obedience.
We are then brought to consider the question
whether. the case OF Mr.. Stanton was affected
by the tenure-of Office act. The frst section OF
that act is ss follows: ....
That eyery person holding. any ofncial ofnoo to
SoS snS SssG q tRs Senate and
who shall hereafter be appointed to any such oioe,
and shall become duly qualified 70 act therein, 10
and ihsll be ;;entitled 10 hold such oflcs until
successor shall have beeni In like manner appoint
cd and duly qualified. except - herein otherwise
provided, PROVIDED, That the Secretaries OF state,
Of the Treasury, Of tho War, Of the Navy, and Of
Interior, tho Postmaster General, and tho Attorney
General, shall hold their Offices respectively Tor
they may have been appointed, and for one month ~
thereafter subject to the removal by and with tho
advice and consent Of tho Senate.
The counsel for the President contend that
"out Of this body OF the section II Is explicitly
declared that there 10 to DO excepted o particu-
lar class OF officers, except rs herein other
wise provided" The Senator from Iowa, Mr..
Grimes, In his published opinion, says: "Mr.
Stanton's case Is not within the body of the frst
section. The tenure which that provides for Is
not the tenure Of any Secretary" Other Sen
a,ors, who agree with Mr.. Grimes L. the conclu-
sion TO which he comes, adopt the views OF the
counsel for the President. These views are the
opposites IN statement and principle, and can
not be reconciled with each other.
The construction Of Judge Curtis Is that the
body Of tho section-the words 'every person
holding any civil office, appointed with the sd-
vice and consent Of the Senate pecessariiy In-
ciudss Mr.. Stanton's case, rs he vas civil of.
fcer who had been appointed with advice and
consent Of the Senate; and to get rid Of MIR.
Stanton's case ho Is forced to the construction
that the words, ''except rs herein otherwise
provided, Except him out Of the body OF the
section !" while the senator from Iowa accom-
plishes the same result, moro directly. but not
less erroncOusly, by denying altogether that
his case Is included In the body OF the section.
II admits Of no argument that this last opinion
is unsound, and that conclusions drawn from
suoh premises arc untenahle. The words, "eve-
ry person holding any civil Office" &c., by
the force OF the unavoidable meaning Of Ian
guage. Il must be conceded, embrace the case
Of Mr.. Stanton, then holding the office OF Sec-
retary Of War.
But leaving this discrepancy Of deduction I
turn to the construction Of the oct OF Judge
Curtis, which seems to be the generally receiv-
ed Interpretation OF those who hold that Mr..
Stanton's case is not provided for In the act.
holding any civil Office" &c., include Mr..
Stanton, but insists that the words except Is
herein otherwise provided" taken In oonneo-
tion with the proviso thst follows, operate 10
ereiuie him from this general description OF
persons.
The words "except rs herein otherwise pro-
vided," II Is plain, either standing alone or ta-
ken 10 connection with tho pro'iso are not en-
titled to the force OF terms Of absolute exclu-
sion, but rather are used In the sense OF quail
Tying some antecedent provision In the body OF
the section. Now what are these antecedent
words or provision to which these qualifying
words relate. and which they are supposed to
modiiyi Do they qualify the position ''every
person holding any civil Office" &C., "exccpt
as herein otherwise provided" or the words
''is and shall be entitled to hold his ofice until
his successor ahall In like manner be appointed
and qualified 2" ''exoept ss herein otherwise
provided"
Do the qualifying words operate to erelHde
. portion the perrons from holding Office un-
der this act altogether, or do they operate tn
qualify the condition OF holdingl Tho former
II Is submitted. does violence to
the intent Of the act; besides, Il 10 an obvious
Of the qualifying words TO .
portion Of the section, to which they do not re.
late. II Is clear that Il WAS the intent Of the
act to regulate tenure OF office, Of some sort,
Of all the persons described In the body of the
seotiou. thGt 10, "every person holding any
civil OtRoe," &C.: but By ihis construction .
portion OF those persons fAil to be provided for
while the adoption VI the other
view provides for them tenure Of ofiee, but
different In its conditions, snd 10 thus In bar
mony with the objects OF the Law.
ri be accepted that the Secretaries are not
excepted out Of the body Of the section. and
that the effect OF the proviso u simply 70 pro-
v;ds and determine that thsir tsnuns NJ ofica