Democratic enquirer. [volume] (M'arthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1867-1873, 1868-03-05


olloo or any independent right TO hold dur
ing the term Of the Presldent and one
month afteF the cessation OF HE official
fanctlona. Tho proviso. therefore, Rives no
tenure ol ofiioe to any one Of these officers
who has been appointed By the President
beyond one month alleF the Accession OF
his successor. In the case OF Mr.. Stanton,
the only appoinlment under which he held
the ofice Of Secretary Of War was that con-
ferred upon him BY Immediate predecessor
with the advice and consent OF the Senate.
He has never held from me any appointment
40 the head Of the War Department. What
ever right he had 10 hold the Office was
polnlmsnt and my Owl suifsrance.
The law was not introduced 10 protect such an
incumbent Of the War Depaftwsnt by taking
from the prealdens the power 10 remove him.
This, In my Judgment, e perfectly clear, as the
law itself Admits ofno other construction. eve
fnd in all that portio6S SQg the section which
preeedes the proViso that, ssito civil officers
generally, thepresident is dspdVed Of the power
Of removal, and Il Is plain that IL there had
been no prOviso that power would just az clearly
haya been taken from him, 80 far as II applies
to the seven heads of the departments, but. for
reasons which were noidoubt satisl Atpry to Con.
gTess, the principal officers were yecially pro-
vided for. Aa 70 them, the express and only 70
quirement is that the president who has ap.-
pointed them shall not, without tho advice and
consent of the Senate, femoga. them from
office. Tho consequences Is, that, as to my Cabi-
net embracing the oflcers dssignsikd in the frst
section, the act takes from me the power, with
o1t the concurrence of the Senate, TO remove
any one Of them have appointed but Il docs
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, fhows that
while in one part of the section provision Is
made for officers generally, in another clause
there Is q class OF officers designated By their
titles, who are exempted from the general terms
Of the law, and in reference 10 whom Q clear
distinction 10 made as to thu general power Of
removal limited in the first clause Of the section.
This distinction is that as to such Of these emu
merated 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 TO those who have not been ap.
pointed by him there Is no like denial Of biz
power to displace them. II would be viola,
tion Of the plain meaning Of this enactment to
place Mr., Stanton upon the same footing as
thofo heads OF departments who have been ap-
pointed by myself As TO him this law gives
him no tenure Of office. The members Of my
Cabinet who have been appointed by him are BY
this act entitled to hold for one month after the
term of my Office shall cease, but Mr.. Stanton
could not, against the wishes Of my
successor, hold q moment thereafter.
If he were permitted by that successor TO hold
for the hrst two weeks, would that successor
have no power 10 remove him But the power
ofmy successor over him would be no greater
than my owe. Hmy successor would have lhe
power TO remove Mr.. Stanton after permitting
him to remain period Oftwo weeks because he
was not appointed by bin or by bis predecessor,
/, who have tolerated Mr.. Stanton ruore than
two years, certainly have tho same tight to
remove him and upou the same ground, pamely
that he was not appointed by me but by my
predecessor.
Under this construction of the tenure Of Office
act never doubted my power to remove him,
whether the act was constitutional or NOT. was
always Of the opinion that IL did not secure
him from removal, ] was aware, however, that
there were doubts as to the construction Of the
law, aud from the first l dstmed it desirable
that at tho earliest possible moment these
doubts should DO settled, and the true cOnstruc.
| ton II the act fixed by decision Of tho Supreme
Court OF the United States. Ny order OF sus.
pension in August last, was intended to place
the case in such position as would make re-
sort to judicial decision both necessary and
proper. My understanding and wishes, how.
| ever, under the order Of suspension were frus-
trated, and the late order OF Mr.. St nton's re-
moval was q further step towards the accom-.
plishment of that purpose.
/ repeat that my own conviction as to the
true construction OF the law and as to the con-
stilutonaiity were we'll settled, and we're sus
At hx, ka. nE -
GLIDING Stanton himself. Upon the question
Of constitutionality each one in turn
deliberately advised me that the ten
ure of Office act was unconstitutional
upon the question whether 40 TO th ose mem
bers who were appointed by my predecessor
that act took from me the power to remove
them One OF those members said emphat-
ically, in the presence OF the others sitting
In Cabinet, that they did not come within
the provisions Of the act. and it was no pro-
lection TO them. No one dissented from this
construction, and I understood them all TO
acqnieace In its correctness IN q matter OF
auch grave consequence.
Iwas not disposed to rest upon my own
opinions, though fortified by my constit u
tiOnal advisers. l have therefore sought to
bring the question at as early day az posai-
BILE, before the Supreme O0nrt OF the United
In respect 70 so much Of the resolution as
relates 10 the degradation OF an officer TO oct
as Secretary OF War dd interim, have only
10 say that have exercised this power under
the provisions OF the first section OF the act
OF February 18th, 1895, which 60 Ear as they
are applicable TO vRoancy caused BY removal,
understand to be still In force. The legia
lation on the subject Of dd interim appoint.
ment in the Executive Departments stands,
90 TO the War office, as follOWS:
The section Of the act Of the 9th Of August.
1883, made no provision for Q vacancy in the
very case OF removal of the head OF the
War Department, and upon such vacancy
gives the charge and custody of the records,
books and papers 10 the chief clerk. Next,
by the act of the 9Th Of May, 1892, section s,
Il Is provided that In case Of vacancy occa-
stoned by death, absence from the seat Of
government Of sickness, Of the head Of
the War Department, the President may
authorize person to perform the duties OF
the Office until q successor is appointed, or
the disability removed. The act, it will be
observed, does mot provide for the case Of q
vscancy caused by removal then. By the
first section OF the act Of February 18th,
1895, It is provided that in case of any va
cAncY the President may appoint person to
perform the duties while the vacancy exists,
and those acts are followed by that OF
the Goth Of February, 1858, by the
first section Of which provision is again
made for s-vaoancy caused by death, resig-
nation, absonce from the seat of government
or sickness OF the head OF any executive de-
partment, is upon the occurrence Of such
vacancy, power is given to the President TO
authorize the head Of sny other executive
department or other officers ia either oil said
departments whose appointment is vested IN
the President, at his discretion, to perform
the duties OF the said respective officers un-
til q successor be appointed, or such absence
or inability by sickness shall cease; provided
that no one vacancy shall be supplied In
the manner Aforesaid for q longer period
than six month";; thus law, with some modif-
cations, re.enscts the act OF 1797, and pro.
vides, 80 did that act, for the sort Of vacan.
cies TO be filled, but, like the act Of 1793, it
makes no provision for vacancy occasioned
by removal. 1t has reference altogether to
vacancies arising from other causes. Accord
ing TO my construction OF the act OF 1853,
while it imphedly repeals the aot Of
l792, regulating the vaeanciss therein
described, II has no bearing whatever on
so much OF the act Of 1905 as applies
20 vacancies caused by removal. The
sctof 1895 furnishes the rule for vacancy
oocaaioned by removal, one OF the vacancies