Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-10
fMR .IsaRRAOnM.Nr fRuAL..
Ceutin1asioa Of Yesserday's PrssseAiags

GEES having expbed. The Osurt WA again cslys4
TO order. but the memberD were tArdy e0mint
in, whereupos Mr.. A&14 Of yssnost neysst
yeas and nsvs. RSe rSii was lcsiieS. AID -
object of Mr. morrill, (that Of Getting the mem-
bers in) having been aceemplishsd, ths notioa
Mr. Curtis then resumed his remarks, aad
said the relations between tho 0xecadvV and
legislative branches Of The 0svennnent re.
ton of the Government until the year 1867.
He referred to early cases that had ariseu in the
Government, aad quoted iron Justice Story
to show that it was held that the Senate ought
not TO unite in the exercise of the right Of re-
moval In this case the President acted with
a due regard to the law Of 1873, and In order to
cessary to go back to the Intentions and pur-
poses Of the legislators Of l7g6 IL Is the theory
Of the President that the law Of 1889 vested the
Ss IeT IN law ws. mn q rcd tpat
some of the ahlest minds Of the country. But
let us assume Tor moment that the proviso In
case. 1t is certain that * Prssidsst IL % make
the choice Of officers. There may be some ques.
ton OF removal, but there can be none as to
.ne right OF the President to choose the officer
nation OF an omcer, his appointments the sole
and voluntary act of the President as is also
the commission granted to the officer and in
support of this position. Mr.. Curtis quoted
from the case Of Marley We. Madison. Now,
Mr.. Stanton was appointed under the law of
I5e. Mr. Linco.n made the choice, and said
20 the Senate, have chosen Mr.. Stanton to be
Secretary of the Department of War during the
pleasure of the President. The Senate assented
to that appointment; but now we have q law in
which II IS SAID that Mr.. Stanton can hold ONCE
against the pleasure of the President Mr..
johnson never had voice in the selection of
Mr.. Stanton. nor did the Senate ever pass upon
his nomination as it came from President John
son; and if Mr. Stanton holds Office at all, he
does 1t by force of legislation, and not by Exec
utiye appointment. This whole question then
Is simply one Of construction of the law, and
the courts alone can decide whether this ap-
pointment vests in the President or the Legs
lature.
Mr.. Curtis here quoted from Mr. Butler's
speech, and said from hat il appeared that the
President was impeached, not for the removal
OF Mr.. Stanton exactly. bur for the manner of
that removal. 1t is said that his language in
the message announcing the removal of Mr.
stanton was defaut. That was a question Of
taste; but W neither the message was defiant or
not, the fact remains that the President was not
lmpeached for the removal of Mr.. Stanton, but
because he sent to the Senate such a defiant
me ssage as did not suit the taste Of the gentle.
men of the House of Representa- YES. There is
no MAJ ter OF fact here. But it is claimed by the
Managers that the President is estopped from
showing his purpose in the removal of Mr.
Stanton, because he had not stated that purpose
IN his original message. He argued that no
estoppel. as recognized in the law books, could
operate here. The President misrepresented
nothing; nor did he conceal anything. The
did not tell the Senate that if they did not sus-
tain blm in his suspension of Mr.. Stanton he
would go 10 law about il. Was the President
bound 10 tell the Senate that He presented a
PLAIN case to the Senate when on the Sd of De.
cember he told them he had sus pended Mr. Stan.
ton, and he was not bound to saw that il was
has purpose to carry the case further. But he
(Mr. Curtls) CoRtended. first, that this ten ure
OF Office law was unconstitutional; second, that
Mr.. Stantons case did not come within its
terms and provisions; and, third, even if the
Senate held the law to be constitutional and
that Dir. Stanton came within its terms il does
not make such a case as will warrant q high
crime and misdemeanor The President had
/ avoided as far as possible a conflict with this
law, and he only acted when he was compelled
10 do So or else surrender some of his constitu-
uonal prerogatIves. Referring to the changes
that had been made in the wording of commits
sions, MIR. Curtis contended that that had no
bearing upon the tenure of Office act as il re-
lated TO the case OF Mr.. Stanton, and if Mr.
Stanton is not within that law, it remains as IL
was originally, and if Mr.. Stanton is not
within The law, there is nothing in the first
article OF Impeachment that warrants a con-
yictlon.
AT this point, GAO p. m, y on motion of Mr..
johnson, the Court adjourned, at the sugges-
ton of Mr.. Curtis.
Mr.. Wade then resumed the chair, and the
Senate was called TO order for legislati We bust
Mr. Henderson moved to djourn.
The motion was rejected, and the Senate then
went into executive session. and after some
time spent therein adjourned.