Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-03-18
Removal of Stanton. "


Under the above caption, d writer IN last
weeks Clearfetd Republican, among other
equally absurd things, says
In the removal of Mr. Stanton he kAudrew
Johnson) m ade use of Constitutional prerogatiye
which has been exercised by all Presidents since
the days of W ashington, and which has never
been called in question for eighty years
Is it true, that the ''prerogative" Of re-
moval of officers by the President has neo
er been called IN question: for eighty gears 2
On the 18th day Of February, 1885, bill
regulating the Tenure of office being un-
der consideration, Hon. Daniel Webster,
then a Senator from Massachusetts, made a
speech in the Senate of the United States,
In which occurs the following:
81 think, then, sir. that the appointment natu-
rally and necessarily includes the power ofremov
al where no limitation is expressed nor any ten
ure but that will be declared. The power of ap-
pointment being conferred on the Presi' ent ant
Senate THINK the p0hcrr OF rem0Uai fcenf along
wtth it. and sh0uid hare been rsgardea as part Of
1t, and exercised By the same hands. think the
LEGISLATURE possesses the power of regulating
| the condition. duration, qualification and tenure
of ofhce in all cases where the Constitution has
made no express provision on the subject. / an
therefore, of opinion that ii IS COMPETENT for Con-
gress to declare By lar. one qnak,feataom Of the
place I'LL tie Prestdent remoue Atm, for TO
be stated TO Tire Senate. And am of the opinion
that this qualification, mild and gentle as it is.
will have some effect in arrestng the evils which
beset the progress of the Government, and serious
| ly threaten its future prosperity"
Two days later, on the 18th of February,
1885, Hon. Henry Clay, then Senator from
Kentucky, sustained Mr. Webster's speech
by offering the following amendment to the
bill then pending before the Senate:
"Be at fitrther snorted That all instances of
appon tine Mt to office by the Presidentby and with
the advice and consent of the Senate the power of
removal shall be exercised in concurrence with
the Senate and when the Senate Is not in session
the President may suspend any such officer
nunieating his reasons for the suspension during
the hrst month of its succeeding session. and if
the Senate concur with him the officer shall be
removed, but if /. do not concur with him the Of
| fcer shall be restored to Office
Thus it will be seen that Htrty-ttree years
ago, tie abuse of the appointing power by
the President was SO great, as to become a
subject of grave inquiry and both the dis
tinguished statesmen above quoted, express
ly denied the power of the President to re-
move an officer confirmed by the Senate,
without the concurrence of the Senate !;
while Mr. Clay's amendment also provided
for the reinstatement or removal of an off
Ger suspended during a recess of the Senate
thus substantially advocating at that time
every point embraced in the Civil 2 -lure
bill recently passed by Congress, and for the
violation of which Andrew johnson is now
about to be tried.
Yet, in the face of the testimony of these
two great and worthy statesmen, Clay and
Webster, that Congress possessed the power
to define by law the tenure of office, we find
in these latter days, such pigmies as the
writer in the Republican. and such political
mountebanks as Judge Woodward, Ben.
Wood, John Morrissey, Billy Mulligan, and
Andrew Johnson, in their blind zeal to. as
sail Congress and to retard the reconstruc-
ton of the late Rebel States uron a loyal
and patriotic basis, prcclaiming that the late
tenure of office law is unconstitutional and
revolutionary, mere partizan invention to
abrldge the powers of the President in re-
moving his appointees.
We would suggest to the writer in the Re
publican that, hereafter, he examine the re-
cords ere he makes such bold and positive
assertions as the one contained in the above
extract from his article, if he does not de-
sire us to expose his falsehoods