Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1868-03-13

the proper action to be taken proved to
be in harmony with majority of my
political friends in this House. have
reason to believe, too, that my own i'm
mediate constituents, Every few Of whom
are admirers of the President or of his
policy concurred in the judgment by
which was governed. aaini i"
/ am still fully satisfied with the rea-
sons and conclusions of my own mind,
and feel neither compunction or regret
even when gentlemel who took the oppo-
site view somewhas triumphantly and
complacently vauns their superior Wis
dom as demonstrated by more recent
events. nita ag1
did most earnestly hope that no new
cause of irritation would arise, and that
at least no juster and more imperative
reason for impeachment proceedings
against the President would be afforded.
But in this hope l have been disappointed.
The President has openly and purposely
defied and set at nought a law passed by
ourselves according to all the forms and
requirements of the constitution. In at
tempting the removal of the Secretary
of War and the devolution of the duties
upon another without the consent of the
Senate, he has committed an act which
we have declared by law of Congress
to be high misdemeanor, to be punished
by severe fine and imprisonment. do
not understand that this has been done
by the President upon any claim of doubt
or doubtful Interpretation of the law,
upon which different minds might come
honestly to different results as to his right
and power under and by the law, but
upon the broad ground that the law itself
is invalid as contravening the presiden-
tial power to remove persons from Office
under the constitution. ~
Since this discussion has been pending,
have heard it suggested by friends of
the President that he claimed, and had
been advised, that the Secretary of War
was not within the provisions of the "ten-
ure of office" act of March, 1867, be-
cause he was appointed to that office and
confirmed by the Senate during Mr.. Lin
coins first term in the presidential Office,
and had never been formally reappointed
and confirmed since the commencement
of his second term. Ihave not examined
the question sufficiently to satisfy myself
whether there is any reasonable ground
to make such question. Think it clear
that the President has not in fact acted
upon any such ground, but for the reason
set forth in his veto message-that the
law itself was invalid The President
treated the Secretary of War as within
the provisions of the act, and suspended
him for alleged cause as he might prop
erly do, and submitted his reasons for the
suspension to the Senate. / have seen
! nothing from the President himself, either
in his official utterances or those of more
private character, which have become
4 public through the press, which claim
any other justification for his recent ac-
ton than that the law itself was not
binding upon him. feel very sure that
if his action in this respect is allowed to
} pass unrebuked it will be claimed by him
and his friends as triumph over the law
itself, and surrender by Congress to the
President of the constitutional question
involved in the passage of the law. l
cannot, therefore, allow myself to treat
this as question of honest difference of
opinion between the President and Con-
gress on the construction of the law,
which / agree would not, in my judg-
ment, be good ground of impeachment.
: / treat it as I think the President has
treated it, as involving the question
whether the President is bound by the
laws enacted by Congress by the consti-
tutional majority over his constitutional
objections. A m lla3
am aware that the extent of the pres
idential power to remove officers, to whose
appointment the consent of the Senate
J was requisite, has been, from the forma-
ton of the constitution, a much debated
and controverted subject. In passing
the tenure-ofoffice act, Congress attempt
ed to settle and define the presidential
power in this respect. They acted in the
light of the constitution itself, and all
the discussions and practice and prece-
dents under it They determined that
by the constitution the power of removal
was coextensive with the power of ap.
pointment it was equally necessary in
order to removal; and the law was
enacted in accordance with that view
The President honestly believed, have
: no doubt, that the law trenched upon his
constitutional power of removal, and he
. returned the bill to Congress, stating his
views and his objections to its constitu-
I tionality. On solemn reconsideration Of
, the bill, with the objections of the Pres