The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-10
IMP ACH NJ En- 4.
oosr1HuEp FROM THIRD PAGE.


slsion being made upon It ne ne asser's nG sac a "a
fia sf,,tv s that II law Is passed over his veto
which he believes 70 be unconstitutional ., and
rt,as those whose interests are affected must take
Sare Of them and must raise questions concerning
me people must take careof them at the polls In
constitutional and proper way. But when cues
tion arises whether particular law has cut on
power confded to him, and when he alone can raise
that question, and he alone can cause judicial de-
cision to come between the two branches Of the
when, amer due elaboration, with the advice Of
those who are his proper advisers, he settles down
ARMY In the opinion that such is the character OF
the law II remains to be determined by you whether
there Ii any violation OF his duty in doing So Sup
pose Q law should declare or provide that the
treaty with England or with any other Power, that
would be q plain infraction OF his constitutional
Hnu an arose Mser suoi hs indS
ment, 1t would be his duty to dsoDey the Jaw; and
the fact that 1t would be declared hgn INSIDE
meanor If he disobeyed it no more relieves him nom
the responsibility through the motive OF rear OF tut
law, than he w0uld be relieved from that response
shall not be the Commanders Chief; that Is plain
case OF an infraction OF that provision OF the
constitution which has conided 70 nun tnat COM
Of the country shall be its highest civil magistrate
and that the law may always be superior TO arms
Suppose the President should resist law OF that
kind In the manner which have spoken of by
bringing it TO judicial decision. may be said that
constitution. But what is the difference between a
power conferred upon the President by the express
s e anH o o
Where is the power in the constitution to levy
taxesp Where does the power come from TO limit
Congress In assigning original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court Of the Unned States9 Where do
multitude OF powers on which Congress acts come
from in the constitution, except by fair implication?
Whence do you derive power to confer on the Senate
the right to prevent removals from Office without its
consentf Is 1t expressly given in the constitution
CT q
j submit that 1t is impossible to draw any line to
limit the duty of the President simply because
power is derived from an implication Of the cOnstl-
tuition instead OF from express provision of 1t.
One thing unquestonaby Is to be expected from the
should carefully consider the question; If he should
be OF the opinion that it is necessary for the public
service that the question should be decided he should
sake all competent and proper advice the subject,
and when he has done that, II he finds he cannot fol-
low the law in particular case without abandoning
the powers which he believes TO have been cOn6ded
to him by the people, 1t IL his solemn conviction that
II is has duty TO assert the power and to obtain judi
Slai . decision thereon And although the President
It essential to his defence in this to maintain
this part OF the argument nevertheless if this trbu
this tribunal, before all the people of the
United States and before the civilized
tion I am compelled now to ask your attention
quite briefly however, to some considerations which
weighed on the mind OF the President and led him to
conclude that the power OF removal was one Of the
powers OF his office, and that II his duty, in the
manner have indicated to endeavOr to project it,
II Is rule long settled, existing suppose in the
laws Of all civilized countries, certainly existing in
the laws or every system OF government which l
nave consulted, that contemporary exposition,
made by these who are competent 10 give 1t a con-
s.r1ction Is OF very great weight and that when
made and has been followed by an actual and prac
tical construction, has been continued during long
periods Of time and applied to great numbers OF
correctness of such decision. The rule is laid down
IN the quaint language OF Lord Coke as folows:-
threat regard ought, in constituting law, to be
paid to the construction which the sages who
lived about the time or soon after it was made put
upon It, because they were best able to Judge Of the
intention OF the makers at the time when the law was
made. "contenpOrdrg erpOsttfO est rortissinea In
te0e" Mr. Curtis then read from Chief Justice Mar
by the House OF Representatives on bin on the sub
1ect In 1889, when Mr.. Benson offered an amendment
20 the effect that the power OF removal Is solely In
the President, and said that II that prevailed he
would move to strike out certain words conveying
the implication that 1t was subject Of legislative
Both amendments were adopted and the bill, pass
ing into a law, had ever since been considered as
subject. Mr.. Curtis contnued:-Some alluslon has
been made to the fact that this law was passed only
Dy the action Of the Vice President Upon that sub
Dent Adams, by his grandson, volume pages AS to
$50 He here gives an account SO far as can be
the subject In this way:-"These reasons" he says
that is, the Vice Presidents reasons) "were not
never be known; but in their substance it is Certain
that he never had shadow OF doubt refer to
Fist Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, sec
non 4i6. 1t viii there be found that the
learned commentator considered q contemporary
construction Of the constitution which he there
reasons" Mr. Curtis read the extract to the erect
that the exposition OF the various departments OF the
anS
belongs to O law. He continued:-In consequence OF
the decision made In 1859, with the tests which are
here suggested by the writer, II will be found in the
4rst place that the precise question was under dis
uasfon; secondly, that there was deep Of its
s sna
She Course OF government but that It would
enter deeply into its practical and daily ad-
Ees, go nj Is such determination could Be enter.
1sfned and carried into eject thereby, to nx the
VINO participated in must be admitted to have BEEN BEEN
exceedingly wei qualified for their task. There is
another rule to be added to this which also OF very
tnued practical application Of a decision Of this
character by those TO whom the execution Of q law
Prom lord Coke:-aOptfmus ieguna fnte,pres CONSUL
tdo; -practice s the best interpreter OF the law
Now what followed this original decision.
under the construction Of the government. In isss
subject sufficiently discussed among the people to
bring TO their consideration that such question had
existed had been settled In this manner and been
raised again from time to time. And yet as every
body knows they were far from interfering with
This decision, so far from expressing in any manner
the disapprobation OF the practice which had grown
up under It, It s well known that all parties favored
and acted upon this system.
Al this point twenty minutes past two r. N.Y. on
mouon OF Mr. EDMuSDs recess Of fifteen minutes
was ordered. Alter recess the court was as usual
slow In reassembling. '
AT quarter before three O'Clock Senator MORRILL,.
OF Me-, moved TO adjourn, and called the yeas and
nays, which proved elfectua in drawing In the
abeentees Senators McCreery and Patterson of
OF Tenn only voted yea, Senator Morrill, himself |
voting nay.
Mr.. CURTIS continued, after recapitulatinu the
point ne was discussing before the recess as fol.
This Is subject which has been heretofore exam
fned and passed upon juuicially In very numerous
cases. do not speak now OF course of judicial |
decieions OF this particular question which Is under
consideration, whether the constitution has lodged
the power OF removal In the President alone or in |
the President and the Senate or has left in mari In
he Legislative power, but speak Of the judicial sun
9ositon OF such practical construction OF the con-
esutlon OF the United States originating In the way
IN which tna Was origin fad nnnfinnaL - ~ VIZ