Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1868-05-06
Is Stanton Removed!

In the FREEMAN last week we commented
upon the move made by Mr.. johnson
in nominating Gen. Schofield to be Secretary
of War in place of Secretary Stanton; and
in the course of the editorial considered the
force of the expression % to be removed"
which the telegraph announced was used in
the communication to the Senate. The Ar
gus and Patriot, which printed several
hours after the FREEMAN went TO press, and
had the benefit of later telegram correcting
the first erroneous dispatch, commented as
follows upon our article
BADLY SoLD.-The telegraph reported the
other day that President johnson had nomi-
mated Gen. SchOfield ''to be Secretary of War
rice +. NJ. Stanton, to be removed" Upon
the words g TO be remOued, - the Editor of the
FREEMAN wrote slashing article, showing
up the guilt of Mr.. johnson by his own
words, according to it's version of the matter
which article he made his leader for this
week. But just the FREEMAN was going
/ to press the wires brought the intelligence
that the President said - removed, not - to
| be removed, )" and all the labored argument
/ of Mr. Willard proves to have been based on
nothing.
/ The point we made on the language as first
teIegraphed. was that it was an admission by
President johnson that Stanton was still
Secretary of War. 1t turns out, it is true,
that the words :. TO be were not in the
communication but it also comes out in the
argument of Mr.. johnson counsel, that it
is a part of the Presidents defense that he
has not removed Secretary Stanton. Mr..
Stanbery said in his argument Friday
Mark it, then, Senators, that the acts
charged as high crimes and misdemeanors in
these eight articles in respect to putting Mr..
Stanton out and Gen. Thomas in, are things
attempted and not things accomplished.
And again he said
But if it be held that Mr.. Stanton did
come within the purview OF the Tcnure-of-
Office act, if it be held that his removal by
the Independent action of the President is
forbidden by the act, then we maintain that
no such removal is charged in the articles. or
made out in the proof Ii is only in the first
article that any charge is made in reference
| to Mr. Stanton's removal. That article no
where alleges that Mr.. Stanton has been re-
moved either in law or in fact. 1t does al
| lege that on the 2lst of February, Stanton
was - lawfully entitled to hold said Office Of
Secretary of the Department of War;, and
that on that day the President 80 did unlaw-
fully and in violation of the Constitution and
| laws of the United States, issue an order In
writing for the removal of Edwin Nj. Stanton
| from the Office of Secretary for the Depart
ment of War; 1t is the issuance of this
| der for a renoUdl that is made the .graUan1en
of the charge. 1t is not followed by any al
! legation that it had the effect to work re-
moyal either in law or in fact. On the con-
trary, in the very next article which is foun-
ded on the order to Thomas, which purpOrts
to be made after the order for the removal of
Stanton, it is alleged that Stanton still held
the Office lawfully, and that Notwithstanding
the order of removal to Stanton and the order
to Thomas to act as Secretary, Stanton still
| held the office, and no vacancy was created
or existed. This is the tenor of every article
that Stanton never has been removed in law
or in fact that there never has been an
custer either in law or in fact, and that there
has been at no time a vacancy. The proof
sho,cs that Stanton remains in possession, and
that his official acts continue TO be recognized
The usual form of nominating to the SEN
ate in case of an attempted removal, the
old appointee being in Office at the time. is
Sc A. B, is nominated in place of G. d. re-
moved" yet it is well known such a nomin-
alton does not remove the old official unless
the Senate advise and consent to it. The le-
gal effect is the same as though the express
sion :" to be removed were used.
| So it seems, after all, that this " Sell