The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-03-06

nit crime. One mode Of doing this
| is by asserting that the removal oil
! Secretary Stanton and the appoint
ment of General Thomas was simply
4 to bring the civil Tenure of Office act
before the Supreme Court for adiu.
1 dicatiOn, in order that its constita-
| tionality might be authoritatively de.
| MED or affirmed
4 Is this assertion correct; is it fact
or fiction? Let US consider.
Ifithe President was only DESTROYS
| to have the constitutionality Of the
law settled, why did he not cause his
appOintee to proceed against Secreta-
~ Stanton by quo t0drrdnto, to try the
validity of the disputed act of Con-
gress?
Lawyers know that this writ is the
appropriate remedy for removing all
persons who usurp a privilege, fran
chlse or Ofdce-that it emanates from
the sovereign power. It was the
Kings writ in its origin, issued to re-
move usurpers, and could only issue
In the Kings name, because it vas
used to prevent authority from being
exercised by one who assumed, with
out warrant Of law, TO exercise a fran
chise, privilege or Office that belonged
to the crown.
This writ, then, at any time might
have been issued at the instance of
the Attorney General, or to speak
more correctly, at the instance of the
Presidents solicitor, (for the Attor-
ney General seems to have ADVOCATED
his Office, and thus the constitution
atty of this law could have been
brought before the courts for de-
cision.
Why, then, all this artifce, this
scheming, contriving, and conspiring
on the part of the President to pro-
cure the removal Of Secretary Stan
ton, by crooked ways, by fraud, and
by force, if necessary. provided by his
single and honest purpose has been
to have the validity of the law adju-
dictated?
At one time he seeks to persuade
General Grant to retain the Office and
violate the law; and proposes. if he
should be convicted, to pay the fine
and 60 to prison in his place.
But the honest hero and patriot
could not see; nor could he under
stand, the propriety of this vicarious
atonement for a wilful violation of
civil law, and he declined to become
a Presidential "catspaw for this
man of false pretences. Then he
sounds General Sherman, aud next
General Thomas, of Nashville mem
DRY; but finding these all faithful to
duty he lays hold of the best instru-
ment in his power, and thus is brought
to light General Lorenzo Thomas.
Through him we have witnessed a
series of struggles to eject Secretary
Stanton by force or fraud, and to
place General Thomas thereby In of. |
ice as Secretary of War dd interim.
Meantime the nation has witnessed |
this usurpation - this arti6ce and |
fraud, accompanied with threats of |
IT not revolution - with |
shame and indignation.
After all this, we are now informed |
that the President was simply endeav- |
bring to bring this question before
the courts.
This excuse is not true. It is false;
false.
1t has already been shown that a
quo tcGrrdntO could at any moment |
have been issued, if applied for by |
he Government, to try the right of |
MIR. Stanton to remain in the Depart /
nent of War, and 1t is right to infer |
hat this writ would have been APP |
piled for if the real purpose of the |
President had been to try the validity |
IF the disputed law.
But let us 20 one step further. /
Suppose the President had, by any of !
MS efforts, succeeded In keeping Mr.. /
Stanton out of Office, or In turning |
him out, as attempted, through Sen |
then would have been !
he condition of things?
Simply this: No writ Of quo 10Grran-
% could have been issued, and the |
President would have been master of |
The situation, without any danger of a
decision by the Courts.
The writ of quo ICdrrGqt0, as has |
been said, is the kings writ, and is
sues only at the instance of the SOW
erelgn to remedy some eRcroachments /
lpOn the privileges, franchises, or of
ices of the sovereign. 1t is not given
20 settle private and individual rights,
md does not lie at the instance of .
)ne individual against another
lis his fully settled by the follow
ng case which is familiar to LAWYERS.
md to which | refer: Wallace VS..
Anderson, 5 Wheat, POI. Mr.. Chief
Justice Marshall delivered the opin-
on of the court, that writ of quo
could not be maintained ex-
sept at the instance of the Govern
nent, and as this writ was issued by
private individual, without the au-
.hOrity of the Government, it could
lot be sustained, whatever might be
he right of the prosecutor or of the
person claiming to exercise the Office