Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-04-11
CoNeREssIoNAL.

made BY Mr. buticf, tnnt tne
letter to tho Secretary OF the Treasury
notifying him Of the suspension oil Stan
ton. claimed that there was no lurisdio
ton OF his authority under the Coastitu
ton. He read the letter and claime'
tat /. did not specify under what author
nv the President acted.
THE charges made in the second article
were then discussed by Mr.. Curtis, WHIT
proceeded TO argue that Stanton did no
como within the provisions OF the sec
ton alleged to be violated. de SAFE
the first section OF the Tenure-otO Once
act applies TO removals and suspen'
siops arising from any cause, during
recess of the Senate, but the third section
applies only TO vacancies caused by
death or resignation. and the penalties
prescribed in the fifth section were
directed solely against Violations OF the
third section, and the present case, he
claimed, was outside OF its proceedings
and that the main charge was that the
letter of authority was given without
authority Of law; then reading the act Of
1898, he claimed that it applied TO
vacancies of ell kinds, aud the act Of
February 20, 1863, applied to vacancies
arising from sickness aud temporary
inability, and only TO that extent re-
pealed the former, under which the
President had full authority for the act
referred to.
In reply to the charge made in the
third article, that the designation OF
General Thomas as Secretary dd interim
was in violation Of the Constitution, Mr..
Curtis cited the acts Of 1892 and others,
which authorized the temporary filling OF
vacancies, without making any distinc-
ton between vacancies occurring during
a recess, and when the Senate4 in SEES
sion, and said the practice Of the Gov
eminent had been uniform in filling va
csncies as soon as they occurred. lie
illustrated the frequent necessity OF i'm
mediate action in such cases, by referring
to the appointment Of Holt in the place
of FLOYD by Buchanan. The eighth ar
ticle, Mr.. Curtis claimed, was met by his
answer to the third and he proceeded to
consider the fourth. The charge made
of appointing Gen. Thomas, without the
advice and consent of the Senate, could
not be sustained, because no appoint
ment was made. A simple appointment
to act was not an appointment, and could
not. of course, be submitted to the Sen
ate. The allegation that no vacancy
then existed, is the Beginning of the ques'
ton. The vacancy was created as soon
as Mr.. Stanton received the order re-
moving him, and the vacancy could pro-
perly be contemplated by the President
at tie time of his writing Gen. Thomas
the letter of authority.
Recapitulating his argument. Mr..
Curtis then claimed that he had shown
that the managers could not maintain
their charge Of violation of the Con-
stitution and laws" He then proceeded
to consider the various charges of oon-
spiracy, and for this purpose he said he
would take up the 4th, 9Th, 9th, and 7th
articles together. The 4th and 9th,
which charged conspiracy between the
President and General Thomas, to OBJ.
tain by force and intimidation possession
of the War Office and Government prop.
erty, are based on the conspiracy act,
which, by its terms, has no application
to any person in the District of Column
bia, for it speaks only of the States and
Ter ltories But it was not necessary
to rest the answer upon this technical
ground. In a case Of private right, he
would deem the issue of authority to as
sert sufficient cause for charges of con-
spiracy. Still less could it be alleged for
a public right. The order was based on
the assumption of military subordina'
ton, and the superior and inferior officer
to conspire because the latter obeyed or
ders given to him by the former. He
said that it was also impossible to show
that the President ever did directly, or
by implication, give General Thomas
authority to use force. On investigating
the 9Th and 7th articles would be an
swered by his argument against the 10th
article. Mr.. Curtis then claimed that
the charge made in the 9th article,
not only failed of proof, but was abGo.
lutely disproved by the testimony of Gen.
Emery, who swors to having introduced
the subject in order to draw out the
President. 1t would appear in the proof
that the President sent for him for an en-
tirely different purpose from that alleged
in the article referred to. Advancing to
The other, Mr., Curtis went into the ques-
ton of what are Improbable otfenses,
and said he would not ve4 the ear of the
Senate with presidents drawn from the
middle ages, but would refer to the pro-
visions of the Constitution of the United
States, whose trainers knew quite as
much as the men who lived in the time
Of the Plantaganets, and made the sub
iect so clear as to require no research be-
yond them. The language ofthe Constitu-
lion, he said, was to allow impeachmentfor
treason, bribery and other high crimes
and misdemeanors, which must be equally
grave offenses, and be otfenses against
The United States, for the President is
elsewhere empowered to pardon all
offenses against the United States, except
in cases Of impeachment. He recited
various provisions relating to trials OF
and claimed that it was
fully shewn that this tribunal was con-
stituted for such purposes. A court was
bound by law, and was not law of 1t.
self. If it was not SO, then there would
be no provision forbidding the passage
0f blils OF tnls nature.
The complaint made in the other arti-
Gle is, that the President spoke disre-
,pectfully Of Congress. 1t should have
been said Of the dominant majority, but
the charge is brought forward in an ex'
way for the Grand Jury
is one body Of Congress, resolving
itself into school Of manners. He then
cemhatted the views put forward by
Mr.. Butler, and said that it was imma.
terial whether or not the alleged
indecorous expressions were true:
Quoting from the English statutes, and
The sedition laws passed during the
Adams administration, and reading from
the writings Of Madison passages in sup
port Of the position that telling the truth
about officers Of the Government Is not
A.