Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-03-14

demeanor' Of which he IL impeaehed look
still more doubtfnl?'
The President, who had, up to this mo,
ment, tacitly declined 10 discuss the ques-
ton Of Impeachment, suddenly loosed lais
thunders. 1asI
q Conviction he exclaimed F" conyics
ton OF WHIST after all Here is the So
called civil tenure bill. II received my
veto, for the reasons that / believed il to |
be iuimical 20 the orderly administration
Of the government and TO the Constitution.
The Senate, before passing it over the veto, |
twice voted down that part of il intended |
TO deprive the President Of the control of
his Cabinet. When they did pass il, it was
still with the expressed understanding |
among several Radical Senators that it left
the President the right to remove members
Of the Cabinet whom he did not appoint.
This understanding was concurred in at
the time by. Mr.. Stanton and all the /
other members of the Cabinet Ii is now
copcurred in by every member Of the Cabi-
net. II is conveyed in the first section Of /
the act itself, which reads as follows: |
| THAT eveFy person holding any civil |
Office to which he has been appointed by |
and with the advice and consent of the |
Senate, and every person who shall here
after be appointed 10 any such Office, and |
shall become duly qualified to act therein,
e, and shall be, entitled TO hold such Office |
| until a successor shall have been in like |
manner appointed and duly qualified, ex- |
! cept as herein otherwise provided pro |
| llded that the Secretaries Of State, of the |
| Treasury, of the Navy, and of the Interior, |
| the Postmaster General and the Attorney |
| General, shall hold their offices respec- |
| lively for and during the terra of the |
| President by whom they may have |
been appointed, and for one month there |
after, subject TO removal by and with the |
| advice and consent OF the Senate2 Does |
| this prohibit the President from removing |
Cabinet officer whom he never appointed, |
| but who was merely remained over from |
/ one administration TO another? The act |
says, who may have been appointed by the
President did not appoint Mr.. Stanton.
| He received his commission "a Secretary
| OF War during the pleasure Of the Presi
| dent, which he was obliged to produce ia
court the other day, from Mr.. Lincoln. He
| can exhibit no commission of a subse
| quent date His month of grace under
/ this administration expired long ago. He
has been liable ever since, even under the
| provision of the civil tenure act, to be per-
| emptorily dismissed from his office with
| out any consultation whatever by the
| President with the Senate, for section four
of the act additionally provides: that
nothing in this act contained shall be con-
strued TO extend the term of Office the du
ration Of which is limited by law 1t was
by the Presidents sufferance alone, there
fore that Mr.. Stanton retained his position
SO long before it was found necessary 10
Suspend him." ul
The Senate have changed their minds,
| observed, q since the passage of this in
teresting bill"
"ln regard TO its scope and intention,
should think 80 but the action of the Sen
ale on their new construction of the bill,
in restoring Mr.. Stanton to Office after the
President had suspended him, rendered it
more imperative that the constitutiOnality
of The act should be brought to judicial
test The Executive on the one hand, aud
Congress on the other, had arrived at
radical difference of opinion on three
points. First, as to the policy of retaining
Mr.. Stanton as Secretary of War; second,
an 10 the Presidents right 10 remove Mr..
Stanton being reserved under The provisions
of the civil tenure act; and third, as to the
Presidents right to remove Mr.. Stanton
beiug granted TO him under the broader
provisions of the Constitution, irrespective
| Of an act which the President and his
| Cabinet advisers held and now hold to be
unconstitutional. In the first place, Mr.,
Stanton was marplot in this administra
ton. His removal had been urged, for
months previous to his suspension, by num-
beers of distinguished citizens Reasons
which need not be here enumerated in de-
tail caused me TO disregard, as long as
could, these appeals and tolerate Mr.. Stan
ton as an enemy right in the midst of the
Executive household. ] forebore, until
forbearance ceased even to seem a virtue,
10 do what, however essential it was in my
Indictment TO the interests of the country,
was destined TO stir up an untoward poiti-
cal agitation. 1t was my hope, when Mr..
Stanton was suspended during recess OF
the Senate, that the acrimony aroused
| among the leaders of the Republican
party by that move would perhaps subside
; in great degree before the next meeting of
; Congress that, impressed with the justice
of the proceeding, the Senate could then
2 ratify new nomination, and that turbu-
} lent session could be avoided. In the second
| place, finding the Senate was determined
: not to concur in the suspension, and after
+ Mr. Stanton had succeeded, against my wish
and design, in again obtaining possession
of the War Department, l still hoped that
, the Presidents right to remove him would
be conceded to be within the indirect sane.
? ton of the civil tenure bill. You will re-
call the fact that, in my communication tC
the Senate in response to the resolution
passed in executive session declaring thai
1 -. adj ha ami :
legal power to do what he had done, l sus
, tanned this right under the civil tenure
bill with somewhat extended argument
But, in the third place, having satisfied
4 myself that this right would be contested a
l it is, ! endeavored to make plain the IN
Improbable grant which | had all alonl
discerned for my action in the Constitution
itself. 1t was evident to my mind from
u the first, that If Stan;on's removal was t
o be declared null By Congress on account o
/ the civil tenure act then the civil tenure act
thus construed to deprive the Executive O
ie his constitutional prerogatives, ought t
be jHdieiaily pronounced upon. There wa
absolutely no other way to bring the law t
l. the notice of the courts than that whicl
the President adopted. Had Gen. Thoma
4 not been discharged by the District Su
n preme Court, had there been the same dis
81 position shown on one side as on the othe
= 10 get the vital question of the oonstitu
tionality of this law decided by the tribu
IF nails the case Of Gen. Thomas would pre-
ar badly have been carried to she Suprem
N Court c. an appeal, and decision Nigh
soon be obtained there by which either th
se Executive OF Congress would be bound {
O. abide" t.|
a As the President became more eHgrOsse
10 10 his theme, he leaned forward in hi
er chair and enforced what be said with viz
it orous gestures.
n "Yet here is a supposed cause for in
parchment. Why, every private ciiize
/ of the United States or another counir
Il, where laws exist has the right of tesiin
&c 10 court law which his neighbor hi
&c made an excuse for injuring him. Is ii
il President of the United States no, to |
ar allowed the same privilege when his al
to ministratiye rights, rights which the nj
o. ton has intrusted to him and for the pr,
seryation of which he is made responsible
o. sre soueht 10 be arrogated by | care n