Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-23

that body was of the opinion that the power
of removal was not in the President abso
lutely, and during the session of the Senate
was vested in that body and the President
concurrently. and the debate then held and
and votes cast indicate that the power of
the President to remove during vacation
OF the Senate, was, at best, a doubtful pow
er under the Constitution.
The precedents of the Government rela-
tive to removals subsequent to the passage
OF the above act were then revised and
speech made by Mr.. Johnson, in the Sem
ate in 1861, in which he claimed that the
administration was powerleSS without the
concurrent action of the Senate, was quo-
ted; but the act of 1889 is no security to
the President. None of his predecessors,
from Washington to Lincoln, ever ven
tured to claim under that act the power
to remove civil officer during the session
OF tne Senate and appointment of a sue
cessor. He is held guilty of violation of
the constitution and his oath of Office.
The act of February 49, 1885, on which
the President relies for Justification for ap-
pointing Thomas, as War Secretary ad in
term, was then considered at length, and
it was contended that if that statute was
applicable to vacancy created by supen-
sion or removal, then the President has
violated it by that appointment, but if that
statute is not applicable to vacancy occa-
stoned by removal, then the appointment
is without authority of law; but that statute
was repealed by the set of February 20,
1868, which provides for filling all vacancies
under any circumstances.
1t is apparent, says Mr.. Boutwell,, that
the Presidents conduct finds no support
either III the Constitution, in the act of
l17S9, or of the legislation of 1885. If the
tenure of office act had not been passed, the
President would have been guilty of high
misdemeanor in issuing. an order for the
removal OF Mr.. Stanton during the session
of the Senate. He was guilty of high mis-
demeanor in appointing Mr.. Thomas as
Secretary of War ad interim. His guilt is
fully proved and established, as charged in
the 1st, 81 and Sd articles of impeachment.
The Tenure-of- Office act was then con-
sidered and shown to be in harmony with
the Constitution, and its provisions apply
to Mr.. Stanton as Secretary of War. This
act merely enacted former practices of the
Government, and the chief change pro-
duced by it referred to removals during
the recess of the Senate.
The application of the Tenure-of-O Office
act to the office of Secretary of War was
enforced at considerable length. and Mr..
Boutwell, contended that the office could
be only vacated by resignation or contir-
nation by the Senate of a nomination by
the President, which would work reno
val.
Quotations were made from the opening
remarks of the Presidents counsel to en-
force his position that the official term of
the Secretary expires one month after the
term of the President by whom he has been
appointed, subject, however, to previous
removal, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate.
The arguments of counsel for the Presi-
dent, relative to the intent of the President,
were combatted at length, the managers
maintaining that in the wilful violation of
law the President disclosed a criminal in
tent which cannot be qualified by any re-
butting testimony. He denied that the
President had a right to violate law to OBJ
tain judicial determination upon its con-
stitutionalitv, as claimed by counsel, and
the theory that such course is right is
abhorrent to every just principle of Gov
ernment, and dangerous to the existence OF
our institutions.
Articles 4th, 5th, 9Th and 7th were then
considered. Articles 4th and 9Th are laid
under the act OF July 3lst, 1861, known as
the conspiracy act. An examination of
articles 4th and 9th shows that the sub
stantive allegation is the same in each arti
Gle, the differences being the article 4th,
which charges conspiracy, with intent by
intimidation and threat, unlawfully to him
der and prevent Mr.. Stanton from holding
the office of Secretary of War.
By the English common law conspiracies
are indictable and punishable as misde-
meanor. There is no doubt that under Eng
lish common law. sanctioned by the united
States in the District of Columbia, the fifth
ard seventh articles set forth offenses pun
ishable as misdemeanor by the laws of the
district.
Article sixth was laid under the statute
of 1861, and charged the respondent with
conspiracy with Thomas to seize by force
upon the property in the War Department
in violation of the tenure of Office act.
Mr.. Boutwell, argued in reply to counsel
and supported his argument with cita-
tions, that though the District of Column
h ,,oH, al 1aIh hr-o g.,
tion, tie act applied TO the District. An
act of Congress and the Constitution were
both laws, only the latter was of superior
authority.
The 7th article was laid on common law,
and charges substantially the same Of
fenses as those charged in the sixth.
| The 5th, 9th and 7th articles, based on
common law, set forth the same offenses as
the 4th and 9Th, laid upon the act of July
3lst, 1861, and as there can be no doubt of
the validity of the 9TH and 7th articles, it
is immaterial whether the suggestion made
byIcounsel for'the President that the conspi-
racy act OF 1861 does not include the Dis
trict of Columbia, is a valid suggestion or
not.
Mr.. B. then proceeded to examine the
evidence supporting the charge. We find
the President, if the allegations are estab-
lished, engaged in an unlawful act. lilo
renZo Thomas or any one else is CO -operat-
then competent to introduce statements OF
parties to the conspiracy, and it was upon
this gronnd testimony was offered and re-
ceived the declarations made by Thomas.
Evidence of agreement between the Presi-
dent and Thomas is found in the order ap-
pointing Thomas, and the conversation at
the time the order was placed in Thomas
hands.
Mr.. Boutwell, here noticed the claim set
up by respondents counsel that the order
was not military order, but invoked the
military spirit of obedience. The counsel
said letter was sent to General Thomas
which he coulu have declined altogether,
without subiecting himself to punishment
by a military tribunal.
If counsel had admitted it was a purely
military order his client would have been
guilty OF violating the law of the I'd of
March, 1867 and if he declared it was not a
military order then the transaction was in
the nature of an agreement between the
parties. The President knew his purpose
was unlawful, and he induced Thomas to
cooperate with him. General Thomas
might be excused for his ignorance, but
there was no such excuse for the Presi-
dent. 1t being proved that the President
was engaged in an unlawful undertaking,
and that the purpose was also unlawful,
the conspiracy is established.
Mr. Boutwell, then proceeded to review
the action of the President in removing
Stanton, and the reason he had for remov-
ing him, which was that Mr.. Stanton was
opposed to his schemes. He showed how,
in the suspension OF Stanton, the President
had followed the provisions of the Tenure
of Office acs and detailed the action by the
Senate. 1t was then that the President as
sumed that that act was invalid and had
no binding force. When. Grant yielded
the office the President was filled with in
dignation, and from that day seemed to be
under the influence ofa settled and GRIM
inal purpose to destroy Gen. Grant and Sc