South Branch intelligencer. [volume] (Romney, Va. [W. Va.]) 1830-1896, 1868-03-06

or, without the concurrence Of the Senate,
To remove any one of them that have APP
pointed, but does not protect such of them
as did not appoint, nor give to them any
tenure of Office beyond my pleasure.
An examination of this act, then. shows
that while In one part of the section provi-
sion is made for officers generally, in ano-
Their clause there is class of officers desig-
mated by their official titles, whoare except
ed by the general terms Of the law, and in
reference to whom a clear distinction is made
as to the general power of removal limited
In the 6rst clause of the section. This dis
tinciion Is that as to such of these enume-
rated officers as hold under the appointment
of the President, the power of removal can
only be exercised by him with the consent
of the Senate, while rs to those who have
not been appointed by him there is no like
denial of his power to displacc them. 1t
would be violation of the plain meaning
of this enactment to place Mr.. Stanton up
on the same footing Us those heads of de-
partments who have-been appointed by my
/ self As to him, this law gives him no te-
nure Of Office
The members Of my cabinet, who have
been appointed by me, are by this act cnti-
tied to hold for one month after the term of
my office shall cease but Mr.. Stanton could
not, against the wishes ofmy successor, hold
4 moment thereafter. If he were permitted
/ 10y that successor to hold for the first two
weeks, would thar successor have no power
+ to remove him! But the power of my sue
cessor over him could be no greater than my
own If my successor would have the pow
/ e. -. g.. -.
( him to remain period of two weeks because
hc was not appointed by him, but by his
( predecessor, who have tolerate Mr. Stan
! ton for more than two years, certainly have
( the same right to remove him, aud upon the
same ground namely, that he was not APP
pointed by me, but by my predecessor.
/ Under this construction of the tenure-of-
/ Office act, have never doubted my power
to remove Mr.. Stanton. Whether the act
was constitutional or not, it was always my
! opinion that it did not secure him from re-
moyal. / was, however, aware that there
were doubts as to the construction of the
1 law, and from the first deemed it desira-
! bic that at the earliest possible moment
those doubts should be settled, and the
/ true construction of the act fixed by the de-
I
States. My order of suspension, in Au-
gust last, was intended to place the ease in
such a position as would make "A resort to
a judicial decision both necessary and prop
or. My understanding aud wishes, how
ever, under that order of suspension, were
/ frustrated. and the late or''er for Mr. Stan
tons removal was further step towards
the accomplishment of that purpose.
| repeat that my own convictions as to
the true construction of tue law, and as to
its coustitutionaity were well settled and
were sustained by every member OF my cab
met, including Mr. Stanton himself Up
on the question Of constitutonality each
one in turn deliberately advised me that
/ the tenurc-of-oifIce act was unconstitutiOn-
al. Upon the question whether as to those
members who were appointed by my pre-
decessor, that act took from Inc the power
to remove them, one Of those members en-
phaicaly stated, in the presence of the 9TH
ers sitting in cabinet, that they did not
come within the provisions of the act, and
/ 1t was no protection to them no one dis
scented from this construction, and under
stood them all TO acquiesce ia its correctness.
La a matter of such grave Consequence
was not disposed to rest upon my own o.
pinions, though fortified by my constiiu-
/ tional advisers ! have therefore sought to
7 bring the question al a. early DAY az pos
sibl. before the Supreme Court Of the L
:. for final aud authoritative decision In
respect TO so much Of the resolution as re-
lates to the designation Of an officer to act
az Secretary Of War ri interim, | have on
+ ~ to say that have exercised this power
under the provisions Of the first section Of
the act Of February -, 1895, which so
far as they are applicable to vacancies caus-
cd by removals, ! understand 10 be still in
force. The legislation upon toe subject Of
+ mi interim appointments in the executive
departments stands as 20 the War Office rs follows:
The second section Of the act Of the 9TH
Of August. 1883, makes provisions for n va
cancy In the very case Of q removal Of the
bead Of the War Department, and upOn
such vacancy gives the charge and cusio-
dy OF the records, books and papers ~ the
chief clerk. Next. by the act Of the sth Of
May, 1882, section 3, it is provided that IN
case Of vacancy occasioned by death, abb
sencc from the seat Of government, or sick
ness Of the head Of the War Department.
the President may authorize person 10 per.
. i'i ht t"N NWttto ~ tue uiiCc Nulll "A success
sor il appointed or the disability removed.
The act, 10 will be observed, does not
provide for the case Of vacancy caused bv
removal. Then b. the first section Of the
act Of February 18th, 1906, il is provided
that in case Of any vacancy the President
may appoint a person to pcrfJrm the du-
Ties while the vacancy exists. These acts
are followed by that Of the 20tb February,
1868, by the frs, section Of which provis