The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-26

pOnt of view srpnose Mr. Star.op was rndar tho
law ana we nah no excuse for what we dia then the
question is where m the condition OF tiis auest,on
was the power OF removal lodged. Yen may have
your own opinion about the consttutlonai.ty but
there is another question which present Is thls:-
70 is a question OF construction. Wll you condemn
MS criminal President who stood on the side where
every portion Of tAe government had been mp TO that
time? Now, gentlemen, 10 the next question about
The al interim appointment, and beg you to OBJ
serve that If you should come TO the
conclusion that the President had a right
10 make an al Interim appointment, then
there is great shipwreck In his case. II nearly
all tumbles into ruin. beg you again, when You
come to examine these articles to see how many OF
them built of the two facts the removal OF Mr..
Stanton and the al interim appointment OF Mr..
the act OF February 49, 1875. Mr.. Groesbeck read the
law which authorizes the President In case or va
cancy in the offices OF Secretary Of State and OF War;
10 autnoriZe person to perform the duties OF such
Office until successor shall be appointed. He then
COMMUNICATION will observe that all posi-
bic conditions OF the department are ex-
pressed under the single word vacancy"
1t covers the removal the expiration OF the term OF
once resignation, Absence Sickness every possible
necessary, dd interim, to supply the place. That law
was passed on February l3, I795 There has been
ground under Of February 90 sS'sre No e does
TINS act repeal the act OF February 49, 1852 Allow
me TO draw your attention to few rules Of nterpre-
taton OF statutes before compare them. First, the
law does not favor repeats by implication. Again.
II statutes are to be construed together they are
to stand. Still another, better statute In order
to repeal former one must fully embrace the whole
subject matter. Still again. to effect an entire repeal
or all the provisions of the previous statute the
whole subject matter must be covered. Let me illus.
trate. Suppose, for Illustration, there statute
extending from myself to yonder door; then il an
other statute were passed which would reach half
way, 1t would repeal so much of the former statute
as It would overlap and leave the balance in force;
what lies beyond is the legislative will and
Is just as binding as the original statute. Now we
come to comparison OF these statutes The
statute Of February 1863 provides for the occasion
Of death, resignation, absence from the seat OF gov
eminent or sickness. There two that
not provided for by this statute, and they covered
bv the statute OF 1795-removal and expiration OF
term. SO that we are advised by that simple state
men that the reach OF the statute Of 1895 was beyond
that Of the statute of February 1853 and much OF
with these few remarks upon the repeal Of statutes
come to the consideration Of the al interim letters.
From the foundation Of the government, as you
and others, it has been, the policy of the
government to provide for filling Offices al
q s,'trim They are not appointments There
appointment, and they are not considered as filling
the office. When Mr.. - was killed in 1s44 an ad
cancy occasoned BY that accident, and soon after
wards the President nominated to the Senate Mr..
Calhoun to I'LL the office permanently. That IL
lusrates the condition OF an al interim in the oflce.
1t has been the policy OF the government from the be-
ginning thus to supply vacancies in the departments
from sickness absence resignation or any OF these
causes and this occurs both when the Senate is in
sion and when 1t is in The law Of 1868 makes
no difference; It may be at any time. Now, Senator's
Will ulsullsS tNS pdIt VI SlHDcCJ Dy your
attention to al interim. appointments, that were
made during the session, of heads of departments
In the first place give you Mr.. Nelson. who APP
pointed during the session Of the Senate Secretary
OF State; give you General Scott who was APP
pointed al Interim Secretary OF War during the SEES
sion Of the Senate; give you Mr.. Moses Kelly who
was appointed al interim during the session OF the
Senate to the Department OF the Interior; give
you Mr. Holt who was appointed ad interim dur:
War; but l intend to linger a little at the
case Of Mr.. Holt, which deserves. especial
from the passage Of President Buchanan on January
l, 1851, IN reply to a resolution OF inquiry by the
Senate In regard to the appointment OF Mr. Holt to
a where the Senate took the matter under con-
sideration and inquired OF the President what he had
done, and by what authority he had done it. Why
did you not report upon 1t A full inquiry was made
by the Senate into that Of this al interim ques-
ton, and Mr.. Buchanan replied that he had supplied
the law Of 1895. He communicated that fact to the
Senate. The Senate received the communication and
part. The Senate on that occasion Investigated
thoroughly this identical question Of al interim
appointments during the session, received Mr. Blu
under which we acted, and the Senate did not cen
sure that act while they bring us forward crimi
nal and brand us with crime for ours. You cannot
discriminate between them. Both were done under
the same law, both done during the session. shall
glance now at the next article. do not intend to
linger upon such charges are contained In It.. It
makes great noise In the circles but is very hard
to see through it, What is the proof to sustain this
raj Emory, and in the course OF that interview
General Emory informed him Of the passage
and the President said in course OF that converse
ton that the law was unconstitutional. He did not
say anything more. And that is the enormous crime
that Is committed under article nine. He said II was
unconstitutional. What about thatS Is It not in
evidence before you, uncontradicted that the Pres
dent had been informed that there were unusual
military movements going on In the city the night
before, ana Secretary Weles called on him to inform
him Of the fact The President said he would in
n a nj tn Ennr
and General Emory waited upon him with the infor-
nation. That is all. Is that not an explanation Of
why he sent to General Emory Does anybody con-
tradct IT. No. The time, the OCCASION everything
in the transaction adjusts itself to that explana
tion, and no other, Here was President,
mean to the extent OF requiring him to send orders
through an inferior-gropng In the dark, as It
were-called upon by one Of his Cabinet to inquire
about It. now come to article ten. ! shall leave
the elaborate discussion OF this article to my COL
league, but wish to say few words about 1t. re-
upon this subject, which denies to Congress the
power to deny freedom OF speech. Are there any
limitations Of this provsiOnS Does this privilege
belong only to the private citizenf Is it de-
MED to officers OF the government Cannot
the Executive discuss the measures Of any depart.
OF good taste Is 1t for Congress to prescribe the
rule for Presidential decorumS Will 1t not be quite
enough for Congress to preserve its own dignity
Can It prescribe the forms OF expression which may
be used and punish by impeachment what Congress
cannot forbid in the form Of a laws But do not
100000 ~ 100 SVihO Va suC BoVu PcV-
pie OF the country had been operated upon very
much as the House Of Representatives were In this
instance and they took 1t into their heads to make
sedition law. II was very like article ten. propose
to read It, Mr.. Groesbeck then read the law
Furnishing belous publications or uterances against
the President or Congress by fine and Imprisonment.
Mr.. Gr0esbeck resumed:-1his Is the most offensive
law that has been passed since the government
was started. SO obnoxious was IT that the people /
would not rest under It, and they started as 10 were
4 hue and cry against everybody who was concerned
In IT, and they devoted great many for their connec
ton with this law TO political death. But II was .
good law compared with article ten. SO unpopular
was II that since then no law furnishing libel from
hat day to this has been enacted. IL has been re-
served for the House Of Representatives. through Its
Managers to renew this questionable proposition;
but ] take II upon myself 70 suggest, before
we are condemned in a Court OF Impeachment,
we shall have law upon the subject. Mr. Groes-
beck then read burlesque law, with q number of
which created considerable laughter,
ecting the duty Of the President TO observe ofical
iecorum and TO avoid the use OF unintelligible |