The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1868-06-05


becomes material on tho trial OF Perro'
accused Of crime. Murder. larceny, aln
robbery. like tho case cited by Mr.. Evans
arc instances Of this kind. Treason, viola
tons Of the fugitive slave laws, and the i''l
uor laws, arc illustrations OF the other clas
of cases, which embraces 80 much OF TIM
one AZ relates to removal and appointment
the unlawful doing Of which the stat'ite de-
clares to be inisdemeaner and Furnishes M
such. All that Is required In such cases .
the voluntary commission ofthc act iornm'
den. An erroneous bcliefthat It wnslawful Is
no defense. Upon this all writer's upon
criminal law, all decisions, oil systems ol
Jurisprudence, and the practice OF all corn.
tries agree. Il Is true that the morally In.
nocent sometimes suffer from this necessa.
~ rule, but in such cases the hardship nee.
essary TO the stability Of society is usually
mitigated by remission Of penalties.
In this case there 10 no penalty in tho 10.
gal or constitutional sense to be inflicted by
this tribunal. Punishment by impeachment
does not exist under our Constitution. The
accused cannot be deprived Of iiio, liberty,
or property. lie can only be removed from
the Office lie fills and prevented from hold.
ing office, not as a punishment, but rs a
means merely Of protection to the commu:
nI,y against the danger TO be apprehendcd
from having criminal in office. IL merely
does what tho respondent himself claims
the power to do, at Ills own pleasure, in 70.
spect to Mr.. Stanton and every other officer
In tho land. The difference Is that this
body does il under oath. upon atrial. under
an authority expressly conferred, while the
respondent claims !, and has done II with.
out any such sanctions Of justice and at his
mere will. =,
The "indictmeni, trial, judgment, and
of the respondent are. by The
expressly reserved to the ord''
nary criminal courts.
Il has been said that there Is injustice in
an officer for inirnctions OF law
under the supposition that they
were legal acts. There may bc hardship,
but there can be no injustice, In vindicat
ing the supremacy Of the law. We DO no.
make the law, we only ndjudge what u is.
Il 10 the law thnt speaks to the offender
through us, and the same law imposes up.
on us the duty to declare it. We're It ma
terial, however, to inquire into the motive
and purposes OF the respondent in these
transactions, It would be an easy task TO
show that they are not above criticism, rest
ing, ns they seem to do, upon his dislike to
q system Of laws which he wished to over
throw, hut which the Secretary was un
willing to assist in. Il is enough, for the
present, to say that ifihe respondent be To-
gally guilty, to acquit him upon any such
grounds as are claimed would be to sane.
ton disregard of law and TO invite him. rs
we'll rs future Presidents, 10 try more iorci'
l,Ie and dangerous experiments upon the
instead Of teaching the great
lesson that, in some form, all nations must
learn at last. that It's highest officers ought
to DO most careful and scrupulous III the
observance ofits laws.
| conclude, then, that the intents charg.
cd In these three articles arc immaterial or
such as the law conclusively iniers from the
acts proved, although l should have on
hesitation in finding, as a matter Of TACT,
that In the removal ofMr. Stanton the rq.
spondeAit did intend to vplaiO the act ~
March 9, 1867, if not tho Constitution.z =
While il Is probable that bo and nany bf
The heads Of Departments thought at tho
lime tho act passed, ~ did some members
Of Congress, that the Secretaries appointed
by Mr.. Lincoln were not within II, ann iul.
" satisfied that, either upon or without ad.
vice, he thought, when he suspended MIR.
Stanton In August, 1867, and has since
thought, that the statute covered the case.
His conduct il, to my mind. reconcilablc
with no other hypothesis. tie had then de.
las he says liimself) that he could
no longer tolerate Mr.. Stanton In his office |;
yet, instead Of removing him, ns he had, if
he acted with view to the faithful! execu'
lion Of the laws, a perfect legal right to do
under the act Of 1880, if the act Of March
2, 1867, did not protect him, ho suspended
him, as that act permitted, designated an
other to net, for which designation, upon
there was no prctense or color
Of law save That same act, and reported his
,ction TO tho Senate within the time nnd IN
he manner required by Il. And, rs he
now claims, he also took these and sul'se.
luent steps, in order to test In The courts
he validity of this law, which no believed
% invade The constitutional rights of the
Executive, and which he was, therefore.
bound to test judicially. lfhe thought tho
,asc not within the law, why did he not 70
move Mr.. Stanton In August? And how
.ould he think that the case could be mndc
o try the validity ofa law that did not mp
ply to il? 49,, ,,
But the respondent insists that, although
he law may ie valid and cover tho case.
nasm,ich ms his net OF dismissal of Mr.
Stanton was illegal and void, u was no re.
noval of MIR. Stanton, and no violation oi
ne law pruhibiling removals. lftliIs novel
,oIion could I've popularzed into all crlIni.
,ul trials il would be Of vast benefit 10 OIL
cndcrs. The result would be TINT, rs no
lct in violation of law changes the rights
II innocent persons, NIL such acts Inpst be
ruthless because void. The statute does
,ot forbid or punish legal nets Of removal,
i, would be strange ifit did,) but illegal
me, like this, which. so FIR as anything
no respondent could do, was complete ;
or, had 4, been legal, Mr. Stanton by that
ct uioue would hnve been out OF oiiire.-
The respondents position, but IN tho forms
# logic would stand thus: the statute pun.
shes all removals illegal removals nrc void
md moi removals nt al therefore the stat
,tc punishes no illegal removals.
Il las been mndc question, in respect
q the np,,ointmcnt Of Thomas, (snpposing
Iir Stanton had been lawfully removed 80
IS TO create vacancy,) whether that mp.
nin,ment was lawful. No power Tor that
appointment is clainc,l under the Constlu'
ion, hut the act Of 1905 is relied upon ms
,,nhority for IT, Il is 50 if It bc still IN
orce! Ml, !, seems c.enr to my mind, nller
, careful investigation Of the three acts on
Inc same subject, and the lccisionsof courts
lpon analogous questions. that the net o.
1867 is a substitute for both the acts OF lIS2
and 1905, and that Il was intended to Take
lhe place of both these nets entirely. In
statutes, as in contracts, tho Intention OF the
fmmcrx, drawn from the worls Of the acts
and the facts to which they apply, and un-
der which they were made, is The pole star
NJ construction. The oct Of l792 applied
10 cases of'tieatl, ''absence," ," and "sick.
ness" in the three then existing Depart.
mcnu. and provided for temporary appoint.
mont ,sitho,,t lirniintion m IN tl,e cbOice Ol