New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-04-19

5. This was all that Mr.. johnson intend
ed to do, and II was all that he attempted
to do, in the entire Stanton affair. He
sought to violate the tenure of Office bill,
not with felonious intent, but because be
had right to violate 1t to such an extent
as to make up decision for the Supreme
Court.
But in this attempt he failed. The law
could only be violated by Stanton's re-
moval. Stanton has not been removed,
but is still in Office. The law has not been
broken. The attempt to break it failed,
and no mischief having been done, no
punishment attaches.
Z. But all these pleas may be overruled.
The tenure of Office bill may be constitu-
tional; the president may be bound by it,
and any violation Of it, or attempt to vio-
late it, may be crime, and still Mr.. John
son is wholly guiltless, because
8. The law had no relation whatever to
Stanton. The term of the president who
had appointed him had long since expired;
he had no appointment; he was simply
holding his place at the pleasure of the
president; the latter was at liberty, even
under the tenure Of office law, to remove
him; and therefore the tenure Of Office
law has not been violated at all, nor has an
attempt been made to violate it, and the
president lis guiltless. Qlod era! demon
stratum.
This is the whole of the substance of Mr..
Curtis argument on the first day. 1t is
scarcely necessary to point out all the fall
lacies that lurk beneath its apparently fair
exterior. But it may be well enough to
glance at some of them.
The plea that no violation Of the law was
effected because the removal of Stanton
was not accomplished is inconsistent with
the present position of Mr.. Johnson. He
holds that Stanton is removed, and that
Thomas is the only simon-pure secretary of
war, the original Jacobs, and that all
others are counterfeits. He gives to
, Thomas seat in the cabinet meetings
from which Stanton is excluded. and re-
? cognizes Thomas as the secretary, while
refusing to acknowledge Stanton. As to
the absence OF felonious intent, every one
knows that the law presumes that every
man intends the natural consequences of
: his own acts, and no one needs to be told
that if a man attempts 10 murder and only
succeeds in wounding the law will not hold
) him guiltless. The plea that tie attempted
, violation of the law was for the purpose of
2 testing its constitutionality, is inconsistent
with the other plea that Stanton was not
protected by the law. The validity of a
u law can not be determined by making up a
case for trial which involves only the
;. rights of person with whom the law has
nothing to do. If Stanton was not COW
n cred by this law its validity could not be
" tested by expelling him from Office. The
e decision in that case could only be as to
e the question of whether the law applied to
e Stanton-not as to the validity of the
l. law ITSELF And the act of the president 10
removing, OF trying to remove, Stanton did
). did not make up case for the decision oi
q court that could only be done by Stan
e ton himself bringing an action to regain
n possession of his Office.
r. The assumption that the constitution
+ vests the power Of removal in the hands 0
# the president alone, is an assumption only
rt It IS not supported by the words of tht
q constitution itself; and the opinions o
1t statesmen contemporaneous with the con
r. stitution were divided onithe subject. Th,
,e experience of the last fifty years has showr
d that this power OF removal, exercised b,
ID one man, is sure to be prestituted to serv,
le his own purposes and that the interest
II of the country would be greatly promotes
e. were it restricted as the tenure of ofic
e. bill restricts it.
v The plea that Stanton rights to hold hi
ID Office were not protected by the tenure @
,f office bill, and that in removing him Nj
Is johnson did not violate the law, is tn
strongest and most dangerous points of til
y defense. Mr.. Curtis supported it by re
If counting the history of the passage of thi
d law. When it first passed the senate,
contained no provision applying to cabine
re- ministers at all. The house inserted a
Of amendment, placing the ministers on th
ahme footing as all other civil officers. I
IA shis the senate disagreed, and the resu
Sc i Vas a compromise, which resulted in the bi
L being amended so as to give the cabinet mil
,n isters the right to hold their places 'dprin
ss The term OF the president by whom the
hid been appointed,n unless removed b
consent of the senate. Nothing WI
said in the bill about cabine- ministers VII
ll khd not been appointed by the presideI
HINDER whom they were serving. But
10 the debate some of the senators said thl
itt the purpose Of the bill was not to compel
hi president to retain minister whom he ha
b. not himself appointed, but to prevent hi
from removing those whom he had appoin
bf ed without the consent of the senate. III
ls whole of this technical point depends G
a whether Mr.. Johnson IS now serving o.
what is left of Mr.. Iineoln's term or wh
is left of his own term as vice -presiden
is Mr.. Curtis holds the latter view, but it is
point on which there is doubt.
er These are the fogs which are raised |