Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1868-03-05

coueurred in the Judgment ty which ]
was governed,
aa still fully satisfied with the rea-
sons and conclusions Of my own mind,
and feel neither empunctiou nor regret
even whom gentlemen who took The oppo-,
site view somewhat trlumphantly and
cnmnlaoently Naunt their superior wisdom
AS demonstrated by more recent events,
lid most earnestly hope that no
new cause ~ irritation would arise, and
that AT least no iustcr aud more impcrd-
tive reason for impeachment proceedings
against the President would he afforded,
But in this hope have been disappointed,
The President has openly and pnrpnsely
dciied and set at naught law passed 10y
ourselves according Ia all the forms and
requirements of the Constitution, In at
tempting the removal of the Secretary of
War and the devolution of his duties up
On another without the consent Of the
senate, he has committed an act which
We have declared by law Of Congress %
be- a high misdemeanor, 10 be punished
by severe fine and imprisonment | do
not understand that this has been done by
the President upon any clam of doubt or
doubtful Interpretation of the law, upon
which different minds might tonne hon,
cstH 10 different results as To his right
and power under and by the law, but up
On the broad ground that the law itself
is invalid as contrayeniug the Presidential
power to remove persons from Office under
the Constitution.
Since this discussion has been pending,
have heard il suggested by friends of
the President that he claimed. and had
been advised, that the Secretary Of War
was not within the provisions of the ton.
ure of office act of March, 1861, because
De was appointed to that office ana con-
iirmed by the Senate duIing Mr. Linz
coins first term in the Presidential office,
and had never been formally reappointcd
and confirmed since the commencement
Of his second term. have not examined
the question sufficiently to satisfy myself
whether there is any reasonable ground 10
make such a question. think il clear
that the President has not in fact acted
upon any such ground, but for the rca.
sons set forth in his veto message-
that the law itself was invalid, The
President treated the Secretary of War
As within the provisions Of the act, and
suspended him for alleged cause, Us he
might properly do, and submitted his rea-
sons for the suspension 10 the Senate. |
hive seen nothing from the President
himself, either in his official utterances or
those of more private character, which
have Become public through the press,
which claim any other justification for his
recent action than that the law itself was
not binding upon him. / feel very sure
that if his action in this respect il allowed
to pass unrebuked it will be claimed by
him and his friends as a triumph over the
law itself, and surrender by Congress to
the President of the constitutional ques-
ton involved in the passage of the law
| cannot, therefore, allow myself to treat
this a. d question of honest difference OF
opinion between the President and Con-
gress ON the construction of the law,
which agree would not, in my Judgment,
be good ground of impeachment ]
treat il Us | think the President has treat
cd it, rs involving the question whether
the President is bound by laws enacted by
Congress by tho constitutional majority
over his constitutional objections.
am aware that the extent Of the Pres
Idential power 10 remove Offices, to whose /
the consent Of he Senate
was requisite, has been, from (he forma- /.
ton of the Constitution, a much debated !
and controvorted subject. In passing the /
act, Congress attempted
to settle and define the Presidential pow
ar in this respect, They acted in the
light of the Constitution itself, and all the (
discussions and practice and presidents
inder it. They determined that by the /
the power of removal was
,oextensive with the power of appoint
ncnt, and that where the consent OF the
Senate WAS necessary to the appointment
/ was equally necessary i'll order to a re-
noval and the law was enacted in ac-
'ordance with that view. The President /
honestly believed, | have no doubt, that
he law trenched upon his constitutional
lower OF removal, and he returned the bill I
o Congress, stating his views and his OBJ
ections to its constitutionaity. On sol
mn reconsideration of the bill, with the
objections of the President before them, |
10Th Houses of Congress, by more than
.wo thirds Of each branch, re-enacted it. /
The Constitution provides that in such |
event an act shall become law notwith- !
standing the objections Of the President. |
The President Is not a part of the law
making power Of the Government, except
IN this limited and qualified sense. If
for any reason he refuses his assent to an
net passed by Congress the act must be +
again considered and have the assent of |
two thirds of both Houses. When this I
mas been obtained, the law then attains
precisely the same force and validity as if
t bad the assent and signature of the |
President. When the President has per-
formed his duty by returning the bill to
Congress with his reasons for refusing his /
assent, his power, as a part Of the law T
making department, is exhausted II,
notwithstanding his objections, it receives
he sanction OF two thirds of both Houses,
4 becomes law, and law which the /
thief executive officer of the Government |
is bound to see as faithfully enforced as
my other.
The doctrine sometimes asserted that |
he Executive is a coordinate branch Of
he Government and has the right to /.
Judge of the eonstitutionality of the laws
II Congress and determine for himself |
whether he will enforce them or not as an
officer, is utterly fallacious.
The Constitution defines exactly the ex-
,ert of his power TO prevent the passage
If laws which he regards as iniudicious or
to the Constitution. Beyond I
that he has no more power or right to
eff their validity than The
citizen in the land his constitutional
duty is to see that they are executed.
The other doctrine would be utterly sub
yersive of our whole constitutional system
and frame of Government. That the
President verify believes that this law is
in derogation of the Constitution / am
not prepared to deny. But is that any