The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-02-26

President may authorize person to per-
form the, duties Of the Office until q sue
cessor is appointed or the disability re-
moved ~ The act, it will be observed, does
not provide for The case of O vacancy
caused by removal. 49,, tgT,Ss t}t}fs
Is Then, by the frst section, Of the act OF
February IS, l776, 1T Is provided that in
case Of any vacancy the President may
appoint person to perform the duties
while the vacancy exists. p~,vg =.
He then quotes the act Of the 20th OF
February, 1868, which he says, " with some
notifications, reenactsr the, act of 1892,
and provides, as did that act, for the sort
Of vacancies so to be filled but, like the
act of l792, it makes no provision for q
vacancy occasioned by removal. 1t has
reference, altogether to vacancies arising
from other causes. According to my con-
struction offthe act Of 1863, while it i'm
pliedly repeals the act Of 1892 regulating
the vacancies therein described, it has no
bearing whatever upon so much Of the act
of 1895 as applies tora vacancy caused by
removal. The act of 1895, therefore,
furnishes the rule for a vacancy occasioned
by remoyal-one Of the vacancies expressly
referred to in the act of the 7th Of Au-
gust, 1889, creating the Department OF
War;" After discussing the question
whether the act of 1868 repeals that Of
1895, heIsays: Al ~0a&s& u
1t may be, however, that in this, as in
other cases of implied repeal, doubts may
arise. Itiis 5contessedly one of the most
subtle and debatable questions which arise
in the construction of statutes. II, upon
such a, question: I have fallen into an erro-
neous construction, I submit, whether, it
should be characterized as 8 violation of
official duty and of law. s.ll.
The message concludes as follows -
! L have deemed, it proper, in yindication
Of the course which have considered it
my duty to take, to place before the Senate
the reasons upon which I have based my
action. Although I have been advised by
every member Of my Cabinet that the en-
tire tenure-o -of-ofice actis unconstitutional,
and therefore void, and although have
expressly concurred in that opinion in the
veto message which I had the honor to
submit to Congress when I returned the
bill for reconsideration, have refrained
from making q removal of any officer con-
trary, to the provisions Of the law, and have
only exercised that power in the case of
Mr.. Stanton, which, in my judgment,
did not come within its provisions.
I have endeavored to proceed with
the greatest circumspection, and have
acted only in an extreme and excep-
tional case, carefully following the course
which have marked out for myself, as a
general rule, faithfully to execute all
laws, though passed over my objections on
the score of constitutionality. In the pre-
sent instance have appealed, or sought to
appeal, to that final arbiter fixed by the
Constitution for the determination of all
such questions. To this course 1 have
been impelled by the solemn obligations
which rest upon me to sustain inviolate
the powers Of the high Office committed to
my hands. Whatever may be the conse-
quences merely personal to myself l could
not allow them to prevail against a public
duty so clear to my own mind and SO I'M
perative. If what was possible had been
certain; if I had been fully advised when
l removed Mr.. Stanton that in thus de-
Tending the trust committed to my hands
my own removal was sure to follow, l
could not have hesitated, actuated by pub
lie considerations of the highest character.
I earnestly protest against the resolution
of the Senate which charges me, in what
I have done, with violation of the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States.
ANDREW JOHNSON.
Washington, D. G., February q, 1868.