The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-10

nately, however. we have not only those means OF
interpreting this law which l have alluded to
ject and purpose OF the act-bnt we have decisive
evidence OF what was intended and understood by
the law In each branch Of CONGRESS at the time was
passed. In order to make this more apparent and
its just weight more evident allow to state what
Is very familiar, undoubtedly, to Senators, but
history OF this proviso. The bill. as Senators will
rec0llect originally excluded those officers alto
gether; 1t made no attempt-indeed it rejected all
attempts to prescribe the tenure OF ONCE Tor them
So the bill went to the House OF Representatives. 1t
was there amended by putting the Secretaries the
same footing as other civil Officers appointed with
the advice and consent Of the Senate and thus
amended, 1t came back to this body This body dis
OF conference was appointed. That committee on
the part OF the House had for its chairman the Hon.
Mr.. Schenck, OF Ohio and on the part OF this body
1t had the Hon. Mr.. Williams and the Hon. Mr..
Sherman That committee OF conference came to an
agreement to alter the House bill by striking those
Secretaries out OF the body OF the bill and inserting
them in the provIso containing the matter now un-
der the consideration Of that course. When this
report was made to the House OF Representatives 1t
was incumbent on the committee appointed by that
body to explain what was DONE or agreed to be DONE
80 that the House itself might understand and act
the Senate the explanation as given by the Hon. Mr..
Schenck the chairman OF the committee on the part
OF the House. when he made the conference report to
the House. After reading the report Mr.. Schenck
said:-
propose to demand the previous question agreeing
50 win explain the House the condition Of the bin and the
decision of the committee Of conference upon It win be
that the concurrence of the Senate should be required
ass% 'f Is. s ne s
90 the of well sa 10 oS %
committee of conference has agreed that the Senate
further amendment added to this portion Of the BILL
with the Of the President appointed them allowing
those heads Of one month longer in which IL
That + the whole effect Of the proposition reported BY the
the Senate Of the position of the House,
Then these questions were put to Mr. Schenck,
and he went on to say
the ss se e @hs y ss OF
the term service Of the President who appointed
others can be substituted for them.
Allow ME to repeat that sentence:-'They expire
with the term OF service OF the President who APP
pointed them and month after, in case OF death
accident" Now in this body, when the report Of
the committee OF conference was made, Mr.. Williams
made an explanation OF it. That explanation was
In substance the same as that made by Mr.. Schenck
in the House. ThereupOn considerable debate sprung
up. No debate had sprung up In the House. for the
explanation OF Mr.. SchenCk was accepted by the
House as correct, and was unquestionably accepted
by the House as giving the true sense meaning and
able debate sprang up 1t would take too much Of
your time and too much of my strength to undertake
10 fead s p%t nnx e wnoe 81 y may
charged by one Of the Senators from Wisconsin (Mr.
DOOlitte) that 1t was the intention of those who
favored this bill to keep In office Mr.. Stanton and
some other Secretaries that that was directly met
by the honorable SecatOr from Ohio (Mr. Sherman),
one OF the members OF the conference committee by
this statement
do not understand the language Of the Senator from Wis
mtee which say is not true say that the Senate has not
ssisaed with view to any person or to any President and
of the Navy the Secretary of State.
Thus conversation arose between the honorable
Senator from Ohio and the honorable Senator from
Wisconsin; and the honorable Senator from Ohio
continued thus:-
twice make this eacepon gSa this provision does not
apply to the present case shown by the fact that the Ian
Senator himself argues truly that would not
Of war Che Secretary Of hs Navy The Secretary
n OF liz se
potest inmaton the President OF States
would we all.
OF an individual Senator concerning the meaning Of
law that s under discussion and that Is about to
pass INTO legislation read II as the explanation re-
this body to see whether 1t could agree with the
House OF Representatives in the terms OF this bill
And now ask the Senate II, looking at the language
OF this BILL looking at its purpose looking at the CIR
cumstances under which 1t was passed. looking at
the meaning then attached to by each Of the bodies
who assented to it, is 1t possible to hold that Mr..
SantOn's case Ia within the scope OF this Tenure of
OF me- me m
will remember Is that the issuing of the order which
is set out in the articles was violation OF the Tenure
OF Office act. Ii IL perfectly clear that this Is not
true. The Tenure Of once act in its sixth section,
enacts that every removal, appointment and emolu-
provisions OF this act shall be deemed high INSIDE
meanor. Well, In the first place, no removal has
Mr. Stanton had obeyed that order 1t would have
been a removal, but nasmuch as Mr. Stanton did not
obey there was no removal; so that is quite clear
that, looking at this sixth section OF the act they
have made out no OF removal within the statute
and therefore no case Of violation by the removal II
to the provisions OF the Tenure Of once act.
And therefore, II you hold the order to be In effect
a removal, unless Mr.. Staton's case was within this
act, and unless this act gave Mr. Stanton tenure of
office, his removal would not have been contrary to
the provisions Of the act But this article, Sena-
tors will perceive on looking at It, does not allege
simply that the order for the removal OF Mr. Stanton
was violation OF the Tenure OF ONCE act. The
honorable House OF Representatives has not by Its
articles attempted, In other words to erect mistake
into crime. have been arguing to you at con-
siderable length, and no doubt, firing your patience
Of what It's construction ought to be. Senators who
have listened to me may have different idea about
n but think they will IN all canaor admit
and q question as 10 what the meaning Of this
law was; question whether It Is applicable
ton which any man may entertain; and, therefore,
repeat Is important TO observe that the honorable
deayored to Charge the President with hirh misde
meanOr because he had failed In constituting that
law. The House charges HIN with Intentionally mis-
constituting It, SO that In order to maintain the sub
stance Of this article, without which 1t was not de-
signed by the House OF Representatives to stand and
could not stand, IL Is necessary for the Managers to
show that the President wfuly misc0nstrued this
BILL that having reason 10 believe, and actually be-
lieving after the use Of due inquiry that Mr. STAN
toms case within the law, he acted as II 1t
within It, That Is the substance OF the charge In this
article. Well, what Ia the proof In support OF itf
Not particle OF evidence. Senators must undoubt-
cdly be familiar with the fact that the Office
OF President Of the United States, as well as
Judicial officers call upQR those who hold them for
the exercise Of Judgment and skill In the construc
ton and application Of laws, and on this judgment
and skill in the application Of the constitution ITSELF
II is true the judicial power OF the country, TO
speak, technically speaking, Is all vested In the Su-
preme Court and In such inferior courts Congress
IRON time to time has established or may establish.
But then, there is great mass OF judicial work to
be performed by executive officers In the discharge
OF their duties which is Of judicial character. Take
for instance, all that Is done In the auditing OF ac-
counts. That is judicial, whether II Is done by an
auditor or comptroller, or whether IL be done by
Il. - t.A n1xc~ ..S~-