Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-02-25


doubt satisfactory to Congress, these prin-
cipal officers were specially provided for.
and as to them the expressed and only re-
quirement is that the President who has
appointed them shall not, without the adj
vice and consent of the Senate, remove
them from office. ft.
In consequence, "a to my Cabinet en-
bracing the seven officers designated in the
first section, the act takes from me power
without the concurrence of the Senate to
remove any one of them l have appoint
ed. but it does not protect such of them as
did not appoint, nor give to them any
tenure of office beyond my pleasure.
2 An examination of this then shows that
while in one part of the section provision
clause there is class of officers designat-
ed BY. their official titles, who are ex-
empted from the general terms of the law.
and in reference to whom clear distinc-
.tion Is made as to the general power of re-
moval limited in the first clause of the Sec
tion.
This distinction is, that as to such of
these enumerated offices as hold under ap-
pointment OF the President, the power of
removal can only be exercised by him with
consent OF the Senate; while as to those
who have not been appointed by him there
is no like denial of his power to displace
them.
1t. would be a violation of the plain
meaning of the enactment to place Mr.
Stanton upon this footing, as there are
heads of departments who have been ap-
pointed by myself. As to him. this law
gives him no tenurc-ot-office. The mem
bers of my Cabinet who have been ap-
pointed by him are, by this act, entitled to
hold for one month after the term of
office shall cease; but Mr.. Stanton could
not, against the wishes of my successor,
hold moment thereafter. III ,s.,-r, .,t,..f ~
If he were permitted by that successor
to hold for the first two weeks, would that
successor have no power to remove him
But the power of my successor over him
could be no greater than my own. If my
successor would have power to remove Mr..
Stanton after permitting him to remain a
period of two weeks, because he was not
appointed by him, but by his predecessor,I I,
who have tolerated Mr.. Stanton more
right to remove him, and upon the same
ground, namely, that he was not appointed
by me, but by my predecessor.
Under the construction of the tenure OF
Office act, have never doubted my power
to remove him. Whether the act was Con-
stitutional or not, it was always my opin-
ion that it did not secure him from removal.
was aware, however, that there were
doubts as to the Constitutionality of the
that at the earliest possible moment these
doubts should be settled, and a true con-
structiOn of the act fixed by decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
My order of suspension in August last
was intended to place the case in such a
position as would make resort to judi.
cial decision both necessary and proper
My understanding and wishes, however,
under that order of suspension, were frLs-
trated, and the late order for Mr.. Stanton's
removal was a further step towards the
accomplishment of that purpose.
repeat that my own convictions as to
the true construction of the law, as to con-
stitutionaliLy, were well settled and were
sustained by every member of my Cabinet.
Including Mr.. Stanton himself. Upon the
question of constitutionality each one in
turn deliberately advised me that the ten
ure of Office was unconstitutional.
Upon the question whether as to those
members who were appointed by my pre-
decessor that act took from me the power
to remove them, one of those members said
emphatically, in presence of others sitting
in the Cabinet. that they did not come
within the provisions of the act, it was nc
protection to them. No one dissented from
this construction, and / understood then
all to acquiesce in its correctness.
In matter of such grave consequence
was not disposed to rest upon my own
opinions, though fortified by my cOnstitH'
tional advisers. 1 have, therefore, sought
to bring the question at as early day al
possible before the Supreme Court of the
United States for final discussion.
In respect to so much of the resolution
as related to the designation of an officer tt
act as Secretary of War ad interim, hav,
only to say have exercised this powe
under the first section of the act of Feb
ruary 18th, 1885, which, so tar as they ar,
applicable to a vacancy caused by remOv
ais, understand still to be in force. Th'
| Legislation upon the subject of ad interim
appointments in the Executive Depart
ment stands, as to the War Office, as follows
The section of the act of the 7th of Janu
ary, 1883. made provision for a vacancy
in the very case of a removal of the heat
of the War Department., and upon such
vacancy gives the charge and custody o
the records, books and papers to the Chic
Clerk.
By the act of the sth OF May, 1892, sec
ton g. it Is provided that in case of vacan
cy occasioned by death, absence from tn,
seat of Government, or sickness of tn
head of the War Department., the Presi
dent may authorize a person to perform
| the duties of the Office until a successor /
appointed or the disability removed. TIL
act, it will he observed, does not provid
for a case of q vacancy caused by removal
By the first section OF the act of Feb. /;
| 1895, is provided that in case OF any vacan
cay, the President may appoint person t
perform the duties while the vacancy ex
lists.
These acts are followed by that of the Q
\ of February, 1863, by the first section O
which provision Is again made for vacan
cy caused by death, resignation, absenc
| from the seat of Government or sickness O
the head of any Executive Department
and upon occurrence of such a vacancy tn
power is given to the President to author
l,ize the head of any other Executive De
partment or other officer in either of sal
Departments, whose appointment is veste
in the President, at his discretion, to per
form the duties of their respective office
until successor be appointed or such ab
sence or inability by sickness shall cease
provided that no one vacancy shall be sup
i piled in the manner aforesaid for q longe
/ term than six months.
This law, with some notifications, r.
enacts the act of 1872, and provides, as di
Ethat act, for the sort of vacancies to b
filled; but like the act of 1892, it makes n
1 provision for vacancy occasioned by re
moval. 1t is In reference altogether to va
Ecancies arising from other causes.
i According to my construction of the &C
of 1863, while it implicitly repeals the &C
of 1902, regulating vacancies therein de
scribed, it has no bearing whatever upo
1 so much of the act of 1895 as it applies to
vacancy caused by removal. The act {
1895, therefore, furnishes rule for vacan
! cy occasioned by removal.
| The act OF 1895 is inconsistent with tha
of 1863 as a vacancy occasioned by deatf
\ resignation, absence, or sickness, but nc
! at ali inconsistent as to vacancy by re
j moval. 1t is assuredly proper that tn
President should have the same power {
fill temporarily vacancy occasloned b
removal as he has to supply place mad
vacant by death. or expiration of term.
| If, for instance, the incumbent of q
office should be found wholly unfit to exc
tcute it's functions, and the public servie
should require his immediate expulsion,