New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-04-11
THE PRESIDENTS DEFESsr.

THE PRESIDENTS Defense.
The opening of the defense on the impeach-
ment trial makes no change in the issues OF
the case, but Mr. Curtis presents the argu-
ments which have been already urged with as
much adroitness probably as any good lawyer
couId master. His attempt to show that the
Tenure-of- Office act does not apply TO Mr..
Stanton, because the prOyiso relating to heads
of departments differs slightly in phraseOlogy
from the rest of the section, seems to us no
better than q bubble. The section in question
enacts chat any person holding any Office to
(which he has been appointed by and with
"ihe advice and consent of the Sen
cate. and every person who shall hereafter
abe appointed is and shall be entitled
"to hold such Office" etc; whereas the excep-
ton runs, Provided that the Secretaries. etc.
"shau hold their offices respectively for and
"during the term of the President by whom
"they may have been appointed, and one
month thereafter, subject 20 removal by and
with the advice aud consent OF the Senate
Now the grammatical construction OF this lat
ter sentence, Mr. Cuffs thinks, restricts its APP
plication to the appointces OF future Presidents.
In this opinion we entirely disagree with him.
The expression "the President by whom
"they may hare been appointed mot shall
have becn)l undoubtedly covers both the
past aud the future. 1t was the only
natural one to use for that purpose.
Fortunately. however We are not obliged
to rely upon point Of grammar Tor the con
struction of the law. When the bill was under
discussion, illusions were repeatedly made TO 1t
IN Congress as protecting Mr. stanton fIom
removal, and, when the proyiso was reported
TO the House of Representatives, ttCm the Com
mittee OF Conference, MIR. Schenck OF that
Committee explained that itt p1rpos" was
,,n~ois. te pio,e tL. oo,iotaf1es Oh me same
footing Wih al ofh6r cirH 0qiceu, 90 far as
THEN rcmoyability was concerned, except that
they were to go ont OF Office with the Pres
idcnt. This is certainly conclusive a. 10 the
understanding OF Congress, unless Mr.. Curtis
wishes to insinuate that the House meant one
thing and the Senate another. or that in the
Committee of Conference the managers on the
part Of tho Senate swindlcd their brethren of
the House into the acceptance OF deusive
amendment. The Senate viii hardly adopt
such an unwauantable presumption as this az
a rule of Interpretation, especially IN view OF
the fact that they, who must be the best Judges
Of their own meaning. have empbatlcaliy de-
clarcd their construction Of tho law by their
votes on the suspension OF Stanton and the
appointment of Gen. Thomas.
There is one of Mr.. Curtis's arguments upon
which we have hardly the patieuce TO speak
seriously. Ec sets up ~ a defense tue
plea that Nj. johnson did not remove Sectc-
tary Stanton, but only tried 10 do 30. 1t is nor
easy TO see how the Presidents case is neuded by
such an excuse; but will Mr.. Curtis inform us
whether Andrew johnson recognizes Edwin NJ.
Stanton Or Lorenzo Thomas rs Secretary of
Warf Whether the removal specified IN the
Tenure Of Office act, md 10 tho Articles Of In
parchment 10 physical bundIing of man ont
into the street, or formal Withdrawal OF
authority with which he has been lawfully in
vestedf And finally, whether his entire argu.
meut does not proceed upon tho assumption
that the Secretary has been removcd' Mote-
oyar, Mr.. Curtis meets the charge against the
President OF unlawfully appointing Gen.
Thomas to M Office which was not vacant by
alleging that the office was vacant Mr.. Stan
ton having been removed. When nj able law
ger stoops 20 Quibbling and pettiioeeing, lis
canse mus. bo weak indeed.
The elaborate arsunIeut III 10 the Presidents
constitutional right TO make removals has been
answered 10y Gen. iIu.lsr by anticipation, and
we do not purpose discussing 1t ngain. Mr..
Curtis avoids the strongest points which were
50 vel put 10 tls opening speech On behalf Of
the Managers, dhd does little hVre than cita
the opinions Of statesmen and jiGists which,
whatever respect We may ontertain Tor the
distinguished mep who held them. arc not law,
and can ~ balanced By equally sttong opinions
on the other side. He quotes tho Well-knQwn
maxim of Coke, that Practice Is the best
"interpreter % law overlooking the fact
chat Presidents hare never been IN the
practice of removing oticeH without
the consent OF the Senate; aud 80 the dicturo
tells against him. Neither is & necessary for
us TO follow him IN his attempt TO prove that
Mr.. Johnson has night to disoboy any law
which he deems unconstitutional in order that
he NAV test it before the Supreme Court Tho
fallacy of this position has been repeatedly ex-.
posed, as well ss the faseuess OF tina plea that
q judicial decision could only be reached
through tho Presidents distbedence II 10 law
were biuding upon tho Chief Executive until il
had boen sxamiaea Aad approved by the sa'