The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-05-29

Mr.. EDrroR,-If"Y !" having Inherited sun
dry thousands from his father, should set up
for a self-made man and boldly declare that he
had Accumulated his snug fortune, we
should be compelled to remand him to the
dictionary. When he said that because P1esi-
dent johnson might have removed Secretary
Stanton before the passage of the civil tenure
bill and did not, therefore he must be held to
have Appointed" him, [ exposed the non Sc
q,itur by giving the legal definition of an
peintment This definition "Y" now saws is
"all very we'll" j am very glad of it, AS the
impeachment trial was legal proceeding il
strikes me that legal definition of the word
appointed" may properly enough be employ
ed in interpreting the law which declares that
the Secretary of War shall hold his office "dur-
ing the term of the President by whom he NAV
have been appointed" Ii MIR. Stanton was an
pointed by Mr.. Lincoln during his first term,
as he was, it follows that the law does not say
and cannot without violence be construed TO
mean that he shall hold his office during the
term OF Mr.. johnson by whom ne was not an.
| pointed. His commission was for no definite
| term; under it he might have held for fifty
years SUBJECT to the pleasure of "the President
| for the time being" it will not do to say that
| because Mr. johnson let him alone forbore tn
| remove him, did nothing, therefore he dppoint-
| ed him.
To me, as have said before this reasonino
| us entirely conclusive; but L do not care to in
FIST further upon its rigorous logic IT is
| enough iorm purpose to have shown that il is
| at least respectable. think will not dispute
that it is an opinion which no lawyer or Judge
| need be ashamed OF. If he does, do not
| know that | care to contradict him any fur
| Their. prefer now to invite his attention to
| the fact which he appears to have overlooked,
| that the immediate question before the SEN
ate, sitting as court of Impeachment was not
whether Pym and Hampden Were glorious old
fellows or not, nor whether executive usurpa
tions should be encouraged or repressed, but
simnly and solely whether Andrew johnson
had violated this particular statute. This is
no doubt very plain prosaic business; legal
technicalities are not half so entertaining as
| patriotic and uncompromising oratory; but
| though criminals sometimes escape through
! defects in the laws, the experience OF man
kind entities us to say that tits not best for the
| Judge to stretch the law beyond its strict
| meaning. 1t is his business to eXpound, not
| to make laws, and the guidance that he needs
| is OF reason and not of passion. Human rea-
| son is not an inialible guide Hardly any
| leading case was ever decided without dissent
| ing opinions The difference of opinion
| among the Republican Senators in this impor-
tant case just closed, is creditable to both the
| majority and the minority, and to the marty
| they represent, because it is what wouid have
| been expected of honest men. The party has
endorsed the opinions of the majority, as il
naturally and properly should, 1t has not
| raised the law question "Who appointed Sec
| rotary Stanton?" into the region of politics
| where it does not belong.
=, Is 1t necessary to say that "Y's" conclusion
mat because the legislature can limit the term
OF an officer, therefore it can "remove" him
ironl oince-ls another non sequitur? H.