The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1868-05-29
PRICE FIVE CENTS.

such Unnecessary or inconsistent parts
of the old law.
| Now the Act of 1863 makes provision
only for vacancies caused by death or
resignation, whereas the Act of 1895
extended tO all cases of vacancy, inclu-
ding those caused by removal or expi-
ration of term of service. As there Is
no express repeal of the old law, and as
the new one does not fully supply its
place, the old law must remain partly
in force and still apply to cases of va
cancy caused by removal or expiration
of term.
| And this view is strengthened by con-
sidering the fact that the Act Of 1868
was asked for by Mr.. Lincoln for no
purpose of repeating former laws, but
to extend the disabilities Act of 1892 to
all the Executive Departments.
1t may be insisted upon further, that
whereas the Act Of 1875 did not repeal
the Act OF 1892, that of 1868 cannot be
held torepeal the Act of95. Now the Act
of 1872 was often acted upon in the prac-
| tice of the Government down to recent
l tlultS anu IL was ltlclltu W ny Nlls LIN
coin as asubsisting law in his communi-
cation to Congress Of I'd January 1868.
If then the Act OF 1895 did not repeal
the Act OF 1892 because it provided for
a case OF vacancy by death and thus far
supplied the former law, the Act of 1863
cannot be held to repeal the Act Of 1895
because it provides for cases vacancy
by death and by resignation. In each
| case the elder statute continues In force
except so far as its place is filled by the
younger.
The argument SO far proceeds upon
the ground that the Act Of 1863 Is to
some extent inconsistent with the for
nrr laws and partially displaces them.
But is it clear that it is inconsistent
with those laws? The former laws au-
thorize the President to designate "dny
person" to discharge the duties of an Of
| flee I'D interim in case Of vacancy there
in or disability of the incumbent. IL
it certain that these words, "any per-
son." should be held to include any Of
| ficer of the Government without regard
to the character of his Office or the du-
ties and responsibilities charged upon
him by law? An officer under bond, If
taken away from his proper office and
appropriate duties, could not be held re-
isponsible upon his bond for any default
caused thereby tnor his sureties either,
without gross injustice; and many other
difficulties might be suggested upon
such construction of the law. At all
events, one would think that very
clear, specific, express provision by stat
ute would be necessary to withdraw an
officer from the duties of an office to
which he had been assigned by due ap
pointmcnt under the Constitution (ups
on Senatorial conhrmatiOn1 and assign
him to duty in another Office. The Act
| of 1868 provides specifically that this
= may be done ana thls gave q legal sane
tion to practice which had obtained to
some extent before its passage. But it
: is very doubtful whether the disability
e and vacancy Acts of 1892 and 1895, con.
ferred this power oftransferring officers
; from one Office to another upon the
President. If they did not, the Act Of
iCoD DC ilclNi uucltlOllUl W anu
not restrictive of, the provisions of the
, former laws, and all question of incon-
+ sistency between them will disappear
T The former laws may then ba held to
stand good as to all cases arising under
them, and to authorize dd interim au-
thority to 'any persons" not heads of
or Presidential appointees in the De-
, paEtments and charged with other du,
ties by law.
The rules for the construction of
f Statutes cited on behalf of the defence
on this trial, tell very strongly against
the argument for the implied repeal Of
, the act of '05 by the act of'63. Repeals
; by implication are not favored by the
law-where a later statute is not plainly
!, inconsistent with a former one, both
shall stand-remedial statutes shall be
construed literally so us to secure fully
their object--these and other rules sane
tion by the wisdom of ages fully protect
the statute Of 1875 against the argument
+ of the prosecution and give to it a COM
, plete sanction as an existing law. AS
suDingthat that act continues in force
as to vacancies occasioned by removal,
. it justified beyond all question the letter
of authority to Gen. Thomas OF 2lst
{ February authorizing him to perform
! the duties of Secretary Of War al inter.
im,and the ID, Sd and Sth articles of i'm,
| peachment are wholly without support
= 1t has been said that the Tenure-of.
) Office act repeals all prior laws which
authorized I'D interim service in the EX-
. ecutiye Departments, but the fact is not
= 80. The Tenure Office act has no
: rcpealing clause and its Sth section does
most clearly recognize the validity ofao
interim selections for Executive offices
T That section is as follows;
= "That whenever the President shall
without the advice and consent of the
Senate, designate, authorize or employ
) any person to perform the duties Of any
Office, he shall forthwith notify tht
, Secretary of the Treasury thereof; anc
it shall be the duty OF the Secretary o
the Treasury, thereupon, TO communi
cate such notice to all the proper account
ing and disbursing officers OF his De
i partment."
{ Passing now from the general qucs
| ton OF al interim legislation, it remain
; to inquire whether the letter of authori
+ ty TO General Thomas was forbidden b,
4 amy provision of the Tenure Of Oifict
: act. The 9th section of that act pro
vides:
THAT every removal, appointment
= or employment. made, had or exercise,
t contrary 10 The provisions Qfthis act, ant
= the making, signing, sealing, counter
signing or issuing of any commission
= or letter Of authority, for or in respec
y to, any such appointment or employ