The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-04-27

He held that the civil tenure law dld not ap-
ply to Mr.. Stanton because he was not appoint
ed bv Mr. Johnson, but even II Mr.. Johnson
is NOT serving his own but Mr.. Lincolns term
Mr.. Stanton's tenure of office expired one
month after the expiration of his first tenure,
and if Mr. Lincoln were now living Mr.. Stan
ton could be removed by him and so equally
can he by Mr.. johnson if the latter is merely
serving out the remainder of his term.
In support of this proposition that the Pres
ident had power to remove Mr.. Stanton under
| the law OF !fS9, Mr.. Grosebeck quoted the let
| ter OF MIR. Adams to MIR. Pickering, announce
| ing to him not that he was to be removed but
that ne was actually removed, and successor
| appointed He said his feeble health to-day
| oollged him to pass by with mere reference
| TO the utterances of Senators at the time OF
the passage of the tenure of office Dill, the Iact
that it did not profess to repeal the acg OF 1903,
and went on to argue that as all admitted there
| was room for doubling the construction OF the
| law, and the President had aVaiied hlmself OF
| tbe counsel of those especially designated by
| the Constitution to give it to him, he must be
| held guiltless of crime in constituting it as he
| did in regard to the c0nstltutionaity of that
| law He adverted to the fact that those who
| framed it he could not address with much hone
| of changing their opinion, but he would make
| the inquiry whether, assuming its constitution
| atty, the Presidents action could be deemed
criminal. Abiding to portion Of Mr. Bout
wells speech, he denied that the President was
merely the servant of Congress to execute their
laws; his oath Of Office required him first to
maintain the Constitution. Mr.. Grosebeek
further combatted earnestly the position as
sumed by that honorable manager, that the
President is required to execute all laws, even
| if they are pronounced unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court, claiming that in such cases he
was bouI by his higher obligation; after re-
citing Va Gus well known principles of inter-
probation, one which was that long settled
practice determined the construction of law,
he claimed that the meaning of the act OF 1889
was so determined and fixed by Government
usage and judicial decisions that the President
had the right to challenge the constituticnal-
ty of law in conflict with, yet not repeating
the old law, which had been framed and SO
long construed as embodying the principles of
the Constitution regarding the power of re-
moval.
AT this point the Senate took a recess.
On re-assembling at $50, Mr.. Groesbeck re-
sumed his argument, maintaining that de-
bate IN Congress in 1889 proved the correct
ness of the Presidents construction of the
laws then passed; he then cited the acts of 1898
of the Post Office Department. and those of
1873 and 49, creating the Navy, Post Office
and Interior Departments, all assuming or at
hrming the right of removal by the President,
as set forth i'll the acts of 1889; against all this
preponderance, construction aud precedent
there was opposed only the act of 1867, and
Mi. Groesbeck claimed that there was t,uly
ground for doubt aad hesitation on the part
of the President sufficient to induce him to
resist 1t, with view of having the matter de-
termlned by the Supreme Court; he asked if
the President was to be convicted and deposed
because he had acted ON the Interpretation of
and sanctioned by his constitutional advisers
OF the 18th Congress, and the Supreme Court
and the uniform practice of the Government
describing the character Of the relations be-
tween the President and Mr.. Stanton.
Mr.. Groesbeck insisted it was shown by the
testimony of Gen. Sherman and others that
the President acted in the public interest in
removing him. He then proceeded to demon
strate the necessity which existed that the
President should proceed as he diA by an ad
interim appointment, to test the constitution
allty OF the law and rid his Cabinet speedily
In the only way it could be done of its disturb
ing element. A determination would not
have been reached in year if he had sued out
writ of quo WdIrdlat0, as suggested by the
managers. But Mr.. st .nton had brought a
suit against Gen. Thomas and had him arrest
ed. There was the Presidents opportunity.
BY reason of that he cop'd reach decision
instantly. The President snatched at it, but
1t was snatched away from him. He proceeded
10 argue that there was no evidence of inten-
tlon TO use force in getting possession OF the
War Department. Recapitulating his argu-
ment up to this point, Mr. Groesbeck proceed
ed to consider the question whether the Pres
ident had the right to make an appointment
dd interim, and claimed that he had such right
under the act of 1895. To show that the pro-
visions of that act applying to this case were
not affected by the law of 1858, he made the
same argument advanced by Mr.. Curtis, and
went on to instance various precedents of SINH
lar appointments made while the Senate was in
session, dwelling at length on the case of Mr.
Holt appointed by Mr. Buchanan to succeed
Mr. Floyd, which he said required particular
notice, because the Senate made particular in
curry into it, and called on the President for
an explanation, which he gave to their entire
satisfaction, justifYing himself under precise
~ the same law which Mr.. johnson used in
his defence.
Passing over the 9th article, with very brief
comments, Mr.. Groesbect read the sedition
law, and said while it closely resembled the
l0th article 1T was much less Objectionable and
offensive, for that punished the publication of
something eoolly written, while this made
criminal words hastily spoken, under irving
proyocation. He then read burlesaue law
framed to carry out his understanding of that
article which created great merrlment.
With regard to the 18th article he said he
would only note the fact that the action of the
PRESIDENT in sending the telegram to Parsons,
which had formed the subject of three hours
speech, took place two months before the re-
construction act, which it was supposed to
oDstruct, was passed. In conclusion he
summed up his previous arguments and ex-
pressed his confidence in the final result. He
characterized the precedents of conviction re-
ierred to by Others as beacon lights of warn
ing rather than examples for their guidance.
and pronounced glowing eulogum upon the
lie, character and services of the President
Inc Court and Senate then, at 4.30 o'clock,
adjourned.
Several executive communications were pre-
sented by the Speaker and the members at
tended the impeachment trial. No other bus
mess was done.