New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-04-27

cordlng TO the Interpretation given from that day 10 this
was in session. Dsne by himself without consultation
with or the cooperation OF the Senate And that the
tnc and independent act and which has been adopted
from that day TO tins While upon this subject let rue
Marshall in the OF Marbury VS.. Madison He was
discussing the question Of when an aPPontmtGndt was
from the control OF the President lie held tlat u was
the course Of the discussion he goes on TO say Mhen
the office is removable by the President at the VIII OF
stood Removable by the President" This is the
language. so the commission ran removable at the
pleasure OF the President for the time being" Wheni In
session. At his pleasure The terms, In session. at
his pleasure" the language Of the commission and the
| il has always been construed Now, Senators, II am
right in the view here briefly taken Mr. stanton was not
covered by the law. and subject to removal under
the commission which ne received from Mr. Lincoln and
isn full force There attempt repeal it in the act
Of March 2, 1861 That Act, IN fact HAS no repeating
articles of this Let stand at this point for mo
men 1t excellent point of observation from which
look these We have removed one difficulty
we have ascertaned fact. Then Mr. stanton can be
| removed by the President ] should like 70 linger
longer this question, aud If had voice sufficient
should like call your attention to some other points
We have borne down the main structure OF this great
argument Take out the single question OF the power o,
removal Of Mr.. Stanton from these eight articles and
they are without support and all yon nave LETT 10 con
slder the single question oil the Igh te leter
Of authority upon Lorenzo Thomas Why. senator's, we
shall see more Than that II this he so Al through these
questions, which have occupied 80 much oi me attention
Of the Court vanish out Of sight for If We had this power
come To Court TO ascertain that fact Senators Allow me
In ask YOU Ia consider one more question: suppose MI
Stanton is within the TenureOf-Once act what then
The question then comes for yonr consideration whether
the President is criminal in acting upon the Nuposlil0n
challenge the GOnsttutionality of the law; 1t Is
question of Interpretation or construction of doubtful
admit, whatever his may he upon this subject that
| IL was not law upon which any one might not
! ad0pt this construction Why, / believe that "A
majority of the Senators IN this Chamber are of the
opinion that il does not apply TO the of Mr. stanton
| md az eu IN neX
he very small majority. certainly who would say there
not room for doubt as to the cOnsituiloaN OF me
law. Let me, then. refer yon to the ACT creating The
| office OF acknowledgements
There shall also he learned in the l'w appointed ome;
General the United States who shall be and whose daIl slsl
be 70 prosecute AZ . 70 the Supreme Jon 81 ,s "
opinion upon questions Of law when required BY the fi''n' os
need not read further. Here was law cOnstine IL
you WILL in reference 10 the question Of the operation
Senator will differ as the fact that it might BIC inter
pTeted as not concerning MI stanons case by its pro
visions Now suppose the President Of the United Sater
upon consultation, did eonsrie the law IN that Wayls
there Senator in this Chamber who VIII say that there
any blame to attach to him on account OF any such
And now What il, the testimony on that subject II
shows that consultations held between the Prcs
dent and his Cabinet. not IDLE oonsnltation but consul
"s n nor ane nG Which n V nprake TO nS
tgate the question Of motive. You canuOt pass ny II p
pears that this subject came up consideration aud It
Was taken for granted that these Cabinet officers who
had been appointed 10y Mr. Lincoln, were not Affected by
the provisions Of the Tenurc-ofOnce act do not re-
member that the point thus stated but reoollcct
that II suggested by member Of the cabinet who
appointed 10y Mr.. Lincoln ana That no dissent VAS
expressed our Government j. composed OF three De
partments. Power has been distributed among them,
and they are each independent or the Othef no one
| responsible 10 the other; they are responsive
| To the people, and they are enl9lncd ea, d To-
protect itself against all possible cncrodchmensfrom the
other This they do each and every ncpatrtmenl; w
| OF the written Constitution. VI the head OF one
President OF the United states Is sworn by oath
the most solemn obligation ihat c0nu ns aun,u,',l-u
serve project aud defend the Constitution. lt not an
oath merely execute the laws but also TO the beet of
ton Il Would seem that such oath would impres.
him Y9 tle jdeQ that The FIRST ana paI1n1nl anp on
Constitution and tlg IN all TRIALS ana doaOtS nc shomd
Ia hs point Of the srTaue, the Court 81 2s o'clock took
Mr. C;roesbcck resumed his argument. commencing
by reminding the Count of the points had been calling
its attention. 10 before the recess. He expressed his
of I7sq and delacd with all respect TO the honorable
Manager that the statement was not authorized by any
thing that occurred in that debate The only question
that discussed and settled IN that debate was whether
the power Of removal was lodged IN the Fresdcnl aioe
or lodged i'm the President and Senate; and u was
decided that the power was IN me fle'lu'ht aloW
Congress had passed three bills establishing Three ehecu
tive departments, aud In the language OF ChefJu,tce
Marshall IL had In order 90 avoid legislative nstHby
on that question framed those bills that they should
not take the form Of grant from ibe Legtatuie i Dt
should appear constitutional interpretation These
an rpretatOn Of the Constitution were 80 declared by
the supreme Court were >" declaird anu u,iu py a
Presidents declared by the Congress Whc passed
them and regarded by every subsequent ,onglss
TO the MINNIE congress; ~. N , Ias iY. Jen,ri
ment was then formed, called the Navy Department. ahd
i'm the law creating the power Of removal was recog
msed under the phraseology" In Of vacancy by re
mOval or Otherwise The words were not remove y
the President" the idea conveyed helms that II Wasa
power lodged by the Constitution ~. fNo President. He
passed for q more, 10 the citalnh OF he io'
office Department the law creating which contained this
provision I'm case Of death resignation, or removal
from Office Of the POstmasterG enora II did not say
by whom the removal was made but II adopted hc pre-
cedinQ laws in reference 10 which II distinctly nm
derstood that they interpretations Of the Consttu
ton acknowledging that tue power OF felnoNal Was
lod eed IN President and therefore not necessary 10
be conferred by express grant Then r came 70 Tue act
of March, lsls creating the Interior Department. pro-
yjdng that the Secretary OF the Interior was 10 mold
olce by the same tenure and To receive lhe same sahy
as the Secretaries of the other Departments Under that
law the Secretary OF tho Interior was removable AT
pleasure Then he TO the law establishing the Sew
entn Departmentthat Of the Attorney General In the
law establishing that Office there was NOT one Wofu Su
General had taken his commission during the pleasure Of
the President the time being and had been SUBJECT 10
of Departments He had thus gone through the leslsa
ton establishing the Executive Department fans t
principle that the power OF removal was recognized rs
being lodged by the Constitution IN Tue fresaah u
on the subject Of other officers, sch ms %e
bearing out the same me G r hs St o oE' wh" he
could RELY that If all the laws OF congress were eoeu
from 1Tsa 10 1861 which affirmed this construction they
Would average two or three to each Congress The law
of March, 1867 in 10 break the concurrent ca Oh
| constitutional interpretations. But he w0uid ASK Sel-
tors whether human might not pause mere ana h
man Judgment doubt on this question: All t ~, lreaut
had afrmcd-the construction acted upon l4r ~ years
! the Supreme Court had coEirnCd. lhity ,eght
| Congresses mad concurrcd IN IT, All ths was on me
| one side Of tie question aud on me DINER sue
there was the action Of one Congress Mlsh nv, he u
man reason pause aud human Judgment DOUBT! was
il criminal the President 10 stand by that gSht pas
of prccedens. ana Ia believe, a. me lhftVe.H ON
gross had believed, and rs the supreme l"uft hi az
tmed that the power OF removal from ollce Ns vested
by the Constitution in The President mat ";is tie le
tim This Cour; was decide. Dd senators Dec, t
M INC time Andrew johnson honestly tholght hst lh
Constitution lodged the power o t.hOVa w. ny ii
the PRESIDENT what should be the effect o lhs oE ineo
bY eNrrN Department. O tht NUNcInmchf