The Portland daily press., 1868-05-26
Terms $500 per- an,s,sns, Ia. adrance.

stood with conscience void of offence and IL
was to be expected from man who had par
tle.pated warmly in the great debate led by
We9ster and Clay against the encroachments
VI tne Executive, upon the side OF strict
construction OF the Constitution, that he
should not lend the sanction of his name to
support doctrine which changes a limited
Executive into an irresponsible sovereign. a
result against which, since he opposed and
now sneers at the tenure oEoiiice act. he has
no constitutional or legal barriers to oppose,
OF course if johnson had no right to remove
Secretary Stanton he is guilty OF a violation
OF the constitution for which the Senate
ought to have found him guilty.
Upon the other point better argument
can be made upon the proposition that Mr..
Stanton's case did fall within the Tenure-of-
office Act. 1T seems to me immaterial
whether Mr.. Stanton was serving in Mr.. Lin
coins term or in Mr.. Johnson's. The true
statement is that he was serving out the
Presidential term that had been Mr.. Lin
coins and devolved upon johnson by Mr..
Lincon's demise. The tenure of Office for
the Secretary OF War was tor the term OF the
President by whom he was appointed and for
one month thereafter. II an appointment by
nomination, confirmation and commission is
referred to, then the effect of the law by its
terms would be to terminate the tenure of Of
flee of Mr.. Stanton, Seward and others one
officers if not appointed by johnson for the
present presidential term we've neither ap-
pointed by Lincoln. But no law can become
operative before its enactment. The provis-
ions of the law Mr.. Fessenden says "are in
tended to apply to the present and future and
to include all who may come within their
scope" Upon Mr.. Fessenden's theory and it
IS Johnson's own excuse, the act OF March 2,
1867, on its passage terminated not only Stan
tons but the tenure of office of all the cabi-
net who having been appointed by Lincoln,
confirmed and commissioned, held over dur
ing his next term and during Johnson's sue
cesSion by verbal request, or BY nSere suffer
ance on the part of Lincoln and Johnson
Says Mr.. Fessenden:
1t is obvious to my mind that the object was To
provide for two classe Of officers the heads OF
departments, and the other compr sing all other of.
fcers appointed by and with the advice and con-
sent OF the Senate. The act provides for distinct
tenure for each these classes 'or the head OF the
departments fixed term, ending IN one month
after the expiration of the term the President by
wh ON they were appointet for all others an indeh-
mite term. ending when successor shall be appoint
ed and duly qualified.
If the tenure provided fol- these two Sec
retaries ended one month after the expira.
ton OF Lincoln's term, which is Mr.. Fessen-
den's assumption, and was extended, as ii
might be under certain statutes, by the pleas
ure OF the President alone, the law of March
z, providing for different tenure terminated
their offices forthwith and they could not
hold their places for day without new nom
nations, combinations and commissions.
And yet Mr.. Seward has been Secretary of
State without such new appointment, and
as such has made treaties with foreign gov
ernments involving the expenditure OF more
than fifteen millions of dollars Mr.. Stanton
has been Secretary of War, and as such has
dsburSed hundreds of millions in PAYMENT
OF the costs of war, and both have been
| recognized by the President and every branch
| OF the government in every possible way. If
| the act provides for q distinct tenure of
ONCE ior heads OF departments and applies
| to present as well as future, what tenure does
1t provide for Messrs. Seward and Stanton
or are they to hold their offices perpetually?
Must Grant take them as his Cabinet officers?
Ii the act OF March 2, 1861, had sufficient
effect to terminate their offices at some time,
is not its effect to repeal all power of the
| President under older and inconsistent stat
utes to retain them during his pleasure
alone? Mr.. Fessenden admits the act
reached their case. 1t either terminated
their Office ON its passage or extends its ten
ure till one month after johnson shall cease
to be President. II the latter Mr. Stanton
| could not be removed by the President alone
| II the former, johnson could not by his mere
| pleasure retain Seward and Stanton as his
| Secretaries, not having sent their nomina-
tlons TO the Senate, without being guilty of
| malfeasance in office.
Mr.. Fessenden's construction of The tenure
| of-ofice act involves these absurdities: Con-
| gress legslating on the earnest remonstrance
OF the House, who desired to retain Mr.
| stanton In office, put him completely at the
| arbitrary control of Mr.. johnson, who hated
him, TO turn him out at pleasure Legisating
to fix the term of certain Officers it fixed the
term OF the only office they wished to per-
petuate, at period nearly two years before
| the adoption of the legislation! Besides this
| Mr.. Williams of Oregon stated in the final
| debate in the Senate that the phrase "except
as herein otherwise provided" was inserted in
the Dill before any proviso was inserted by
/ the committee OF conference in reference TO
cabinet officers, and referred only to the DOW
ers OF suspension in the second section.
From all these absurdities a common sens 10
rendering OF the word appointed will relieve
us. MI. Stanton was appointed by johnson
| just as Seward was. The converse of this
implies that man may legally hold Office
| without having been appointed. He was ap-
| pointed by all the formaities necessary as the
law then stood, in his case. If johnson had
desired new Secretary of War he mnst
have nominated him 20 the Senate and given
hlm commission. As he did not then want
any new cabinet officers, his mere reuust to
| nold over was an appointment. Whatever
proceedings were necessary to put man or
retain man in office, so that he could legal
ly perform its functions were in the plain rea-
son and sense of the tenure-ofoffice act an
| appointment Mr.. Fessenden SAYS it was "tbe
obvious design to allow to each person hold
ing the Presidential office the choice of his
own advisers" Mr.. Stanbery puts the Presi-
dents claim upon the same ground. MI.
| johnson had that choice; from his accession
| TO office in 1865 he had his choice who should
be his adviser in matters belonging to the
| department of war. He exercised it without
constraint by appointing Mr.. Stan ton, with
whom he was on most cordial terms to that
| place.
| Ii Stanton was not holding bv his appoint
ment and the tenure-ocoffice act terminates
his Secretary ship, he had power to send a
| new name to the Senate Whether tbev
confirmed it or not, Stanton would have gone
out by operation of law if the law meant then
what 1t is now so strangely claimed to mean.
He perpetuated his tenure by his own choice
of retaining him. As late as August 1867. he
| never presumed to remove him, but sus-
pended HIM under the very law whose con-
stitutionality he questions. If he had the
greater power to remove would he have
risked suspension, which he we'll knew the
Senate would not sustain? Can there be
any doubt then, that in the sense of the stat
ute stanton was appointed by johnson, and
| that MS Office has a legal term extending
| one month beyond that of johnson himself?