Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-02-25

v;,h The adyiee and consent otthe oo""'''
shall hold such Office until a successor
shall have been in like manner sppo'n'''
| /, purporss to take from the E.seuu,s,
during the fixsd time established Tor we
tenure Of Office, the independent power 0,
removal, and 10 require for such remo'a
n, concurrent action Of the President
and the Senate. The provi'o 'na'
follows proceeds to fx the term
Of Office of tho several heads OF
DEPARTMENTS, whose time never naa
been defined before, by providing 'na'
they shall hold their Offices respectively
for and during the term Of the President
b, whom they may have been ap-
pointed, and for one month Thereafter
subject to removal, by and with the nd
vice aud consent of the Senate mus
as to these enumerated officers, the pro-
yiso takes from the President the power
of removal except by the advice and con-
sent of the Senate BY its terms how
ever, he can not be deprived oil 'he
power to displacs them. 1t mus.
appear that he himself had appointed
them. It is only in that case that they
have any tenure OF Office, or any independ'
ept right to hold, during the term OF tho
President, and one month after the ces-
sa,ion Of his official functions. Inc
proyiso, therefore, gives no tenure
of Office to any one oil these
officers who has been appointed
by the President beyond one month after
the accession Of his successor
In the case of Mr.. Stanton, the only
appointment under which be held the
Office of Secretary Of War was that con-
ferred upon him by my immediate prede'
cessor, with the advice and consent
of the Senate. He has never held
from me any appointment, as the
head of the War Department What
ever right he had to hold the Office
was derived from that original appoint
ment and to my own suffierency. The
law was not intended to protect such an
incumbent of the War Department by
taking from the President the power to
remove him. This, in my Judgment
is perfectly clear, and the law itself adj
mits of no other construction. We
find in all that portion of the first
section which precedes the proviso,
that as to civil officers generally
the President is deprived of the
power of removal, and it is plain that if
there had been no proviso that power
would just as clearly have been taken
from him, so far as it applies to the seven
heads of Departments but for reasons,
which we're no doubt satisfactory to Con-
gress, these principal officers were special
ly provided for, and the express and only
requirement is that the President who
has appointed them shall not, without
the advice and consent of the Senate, re-
move them from Office. But as to my
Cabinet, embracing the officers
designated in the first section, the
act takes from me the power,
without the concurrence of the SEN
ate, to remove any one of them have
appointed but it does not protect such
of them as / did not appoint, nor give to
them any tenure of Office beyond my
pleasure. On examination OF this act,
then, it shows that while in one part
of the section proviso is made
for officers generally, in another
clause, there is class of officers desig-
mated by their official titles, who are ex-
empted from the general terms OF the
law, and in reference to whom a
clear distinction is made as to the
general power of removal limited
in the first clause of the section. This
destruction is that, as to such of these
enumerated officers as hold under the
of the President, the power
of RENE oval can only be exercised by him
with the consent of the Senate while
as to those who have not been appointed
by him, there is no like denial of his
power to displace them. 1t would
be violation of the plain meaning
of this enactment to place Mr.. Stan
ton upon this footing, as these heads
Of Departments who have been appointed
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 year after the term Of my Office shall
close, but Mr.. Stanton could not, against
the wishes of my predecessor, hold mo-
ment thereafter. II he we're permitted
by that successor to hold for two weeks,
would that successor have no power to
remove him2 But the power of my sue.
cessor over him would be no greater
than my own. If my successor would
have the power to remove Mr.. Stanton,
after permitting him to remain aperiod
of two weeks, because he was
not appointed by him, but by
his predecessor, /, who have toll
Grated Mr.. Stanton for more than
two years, certainly have the same right
to remove him upon the same ground,
namely: that he was not. appointed
by me, but by my predecessor. Under
the construction of the Tenure Of
Office act. I have never doubted