The Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1863-1886, 1868-05-14
WAsnrNoroN. NIny 6. {


SENATE, !
WASHINGTON, May 6.
The court opened with the usu-
al iormalities, and Mr. Bingham
at once resumed his argument,
beginning With rcstatement of
his proposition that the acts of
1889 and 1905 had ceased to bo'
laws, but maintaining that the
said acts gave tho President no
power to fillvacnncics in the Offices
of the heads of departments, with,
out the consent of the Senate.
The act OF 1889 permitted him TO
create vacancy in one depart
ment, but restricted him to the
choice Of the chief clerk to fill it.
The act OF 1895 went further, ap.
plying TO the other departments,
but limited the commission to a
term Of six months, and was thus
clearly grant Of power, and that,
too, IL restricted grant. The act
of 1863 abrogatcs the statutes Of
1889 and 1795, and again restricts
him in his choice ofad interim ap.
pointccs 1t thus appears that in
all the legislation on this subject.
the entire control Of Congress over
it is assumed and illustrated.
He then citcd portions Of the
Tenure.of-of oflico Act, to show they
superseded the previous acts refer
red to. lie also claimed that the
argument of Mr.. Curtis asserted
that heads Of departments appoint
cd by President Lincoln were not
within the proviso, and adopting
this Interpretation, he said it fol.
lowed that they were covered by
the body of the section. lIc pro.
ceedcd to argue this point al length.
maintaining that the Presidential
term of four years continued, in
case Of Presidents death or ina
bility, his successor serving out
the unexpired portion: otherwise
the appointocs Of tho Vice Presi.
dent would have to vacatc the Off.
ccs one month after the disability
oil the President should be romov-
cd: but tho wording Of tho act is,
not the term during which they
were appointed, but tho term OF
the President by whom they were
appointed. There was no such
intention in the minds Of lis fran
crs, and the act can not be so con.
strucd. He argued that the provi.
so had no retrospective action, and
did not, for the purposes Of the act
make new term.
Then combating tho position
OF Mr.. Grocsbcck, that if Mr. Stan.
ton was not protected by the Ten.
ure 0f.Cilicc Act, the first eight ar.
ticles must fail, he argued that
whether Mr.. Stanton was affected
by il or not, tho President had
committed an impeachablc offensc
because all the power of appoint.
ment granted hin by the acts oil
1889 and 1905 was abrogated by
the act OF 1867. But, he askcd,
why were such lengthy arguments
made in the attempt to prove the
unconstitutionality Of that law, il
counsel did not feel and know that
Mr.. Stanton was protected by it.
and that it repealed nil former
grants of power to remove and ap.
point heads of departments?
Ilo alluded to conferences hav.
ing been held between the Presi-
dent and General Thomas in rcla-
ton to tho ACCESSIBILITY of suspend.
ing tho execution Of their schemes
until the result of the trial should
DO known Referring to tho Ian.
guago OF Mr.. Nelson, who said the
President was willing TO abide by
the trial, ho regretted that his
highncss had not signified his pleas
ure to abide the Judgment as well,
Mr., Bingham characterized the
Presidents intlmntion through his
counsel, that he did not believe the
Senate was duly constituted to sit
us court SO long as States were
unrcprescntcd, as II piece Of AFRO.
ganco, and ho Bingham would
not be surprised it tho President,
tomorrow, should issue II military
order dissoIving tho court. In
such case, their answer would be
tho words Of Mirabeau, which no
proceeded to rcCito.
lie then referred to the Presi.
dents language to General Emory
as a suggestion to the commander
in chief that he would stand by
him in q violation of the law. This,
taken in connection with his dec.
laration to General Grant, would,
in any other country, have been
sufficient to have cost him his head
1t was not charge TO bc sneered
at, as he believed the counsel had
done.
Mr. Bingham then took mp Ar.
ticle 10, and argued that the Prcsi,
dents language not only violated
ecccncy, but was tho language Of
sodition, He also claimed that the
sedition law so often referred to as
unconstitutional had never been Sc
pronounced by the courts, 1t was
necessary in time of danger, and
under Mr.. Jefferson its provisions
had been rcenactcd, 80 fur as to
apply to persons in tho military
or naval service, which provisions
remain in force. lie further
claimed that seditious uttcyahces
by any executive officer arc indict.
ablo under tho common law in the
District of Columbia. Ho stood
4 Z