The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-03-20

| Governor III uelldilce vi HIS CAPlO7E
wish for his removal.
In the Supreme Court of the United
States, in 18th Peters $50, it is stated
by the Court that-"This power OF re
moval from Office was subject much
disputed, and upon which great di
! versity Of opinion was entertained in
q, carly history of the Government
M m 'Nted however, TO the power O.
the Presideh> o,,vronoo of +hf
pointed with the -, ouost;on wa.
Senate; and the gre 70 no NV tb,
whether the removal was ,-orrro,,o a.
President alone or with the co. 80
of the Senate, both constituting L.. y,
pointing power. No one denied t.. :
power of the President and Senate,
Jointly, to remove when the tenure of
the office was not fixed by the Consti-
tuition, which was a full recognition of
the principle that the power ofremoval
was incident to the power of appoint
ment. But it was very early adopted,
as the practical construction of the
Constitution, that this power was vest
ed in the President alone. And such
would appear to have been the legisla-
tive construction of the Constitution"
Thus we have the Constitutional pro-
vision:
"The Executive power shall be vest
ed in a President of the United States
of America" its recognition by an act
of Congress contempOraneOus with the
Constitution, as an executive power,
and vested in the President; the uni
versal practice of the Government ever
since its formation; the sanction of
Madison, Ames, Clymer, Baldwin,
Story and Kent ; the express ruling of
the Supreme Court in the case in 18th
Peters, 259; the endorsement of the
doctrine by our own Supreme Court, as
well as the necessary implication and
the fitness of the thing, to sustain us in
the position that the p0,0er Of removal
1CdS an executive p0,CeT and rested IN the
President alone.
Such being the condition of the law,
Congress sees fit to pass the tenure-of-
Office law, by which the President is
forbidden to remove his cabinet Off
GERS without consent of the Senate
The President vetoed the bill and dis
tinctly asserted that it was not in ac-
cordance with the Constitution, and he
sends to them many of the authori-
ties | have just cited and it is said
that Mr.. Stanton himselffurnished the
material for that veto message. Dis
regarding the veto and the argument
of unconstitutionality. Congress passed
the bill over the veto. 1t surely will
not be contended that this repassage Oi
the bill made it constitutional, if il
were not so before. Its repassage
could do no more than give it the form
and authority of law. 1t became a
law binding upon all, unless it conf1ic-
ted with the organic law, and if it does
so conflict it was not of binding force
and effect. 1t did not become the Su.
prenle tar ofthe lWadif itcOntravened the
constitutional prerOgatives of the Pres
ident, for only those laws that are
passed IN pursuance Ofthe Constitution
become the supreme law of the land.
"This Constitution, and the laws OF
the United States which shall be made
in pursuance thereof, shall be the SUI
preme law of the land" are the words
of article G, sec. 2 of the Constitution,
and the oath of the President is, II dc
sOlemnly swear that / will faithfully
execute the office of President of the
United States, and will to the best Ot
my ability preserUe, project and defe1o
| the Constitution of the United States
Thus we have, upon the one side
the Executive, one of the great co-or
dinate branches of the government
bound by oath to pass upon the con
stitutionality of the law, affirming it:
invalidity, and upon the other hanC
the legislative branch equally bound
to obey the organic law, by repassine
the bill, giving it the form of law anC
asserting its constitutiOnality
The President bound to execute the
| laws, sworn to see that ''the laws are
faithfully executed" asserts and be-
lieves this law not to be the supreme
tar, because not made in pursuance o
the Constitution; whilst Congress assert:
its validity and binding force. And
the question results who shall settle
this conflict of opinion
The bill having all the forms of Law
is to be obeyed or declared invalid
| Shall the president ignore his oath OF
recognize It's force and test the ques
/ ton?
1t was his clear duty to bring it be
fore the Courts for settlement, the law
! directly affected himself in his admin
stration of the government and in max
ing case for practically ascertainin&
whether he or Congress was right, h'
did what any private citizen would b'
entitled to. For this he is impeached
The third article of the Constitution
declared that ''the judicial power shal
extend to all cases in law and equity
arising under this Constitution anC
the laws of the United States"
The jurisdiction ofthe Supreme Cour
seems to be clear. To this tribunal h'
has appealed for the decision of th'