The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1868-06-05

inc term unt tnht HiS beBti REPRESENTATIVE
either takes new term or none nj al.
}, But Il is tr,ieiy said lha, Mr.. Lincoln had
i. a prior term in iehieh, in the language oi
counsel, Mr.. Stnnton was appointed, which
had expired two years before the passage
OF the law; and Il 10 claiined that that yfrsl
term il the one named in the act, and that
il meant therefore, that Mr. Stanton should
hold for one month after March I, 1865,
instead Of one month niter March 4, 1863.
The answer (if any l,e needfuD 10 that the
net passed in The middle Of Mr.. Lincolns
second and hsn erisiing tenn, and 10 reject
that term, aud apply the words Of the stat.
ute to past and completed term, which
had then no existence either In law or TACT,
would be contrary not only to any supPos.
able intention Of the Lawmakers, but in
direct violation Of the words OF the statute,
which declares that he "shall hold Tin
stead ofnot holding) not during the term
sin which" he "may have been appointed" 4"
as counsel use the words, but sduring The
term of the President by whom he may
have been appointed" Any other con.
struction would involve the gross nbs!lrdity
that Congress by that sci, ON the ID OF March,
1867, legislaied out Of Office virtually, ns OF
April 4,ii, 1865, those Secretaries who had
been appointed by Mr.. Lincoln, and in
tended 10 declare that officers then legally
holding should 60 out Of Office two years
before the passage of the act!
This result was sought to be avoi,led by
the distinguished counsel who opened tho
defence. if nightly understood him, by ad-
vancing the idea that tho proyiso should be
construed to read and apply to future Sec
retaries, &C., and to have no reference to
the then present ones. This is, perhaps,
sufficiently answered already. ] know Of
no rule of construction by which that word
can no interpolatcd into the statute, and if
II were the proviso would be made thereby
10 have no reference At all to the present
Secretaries. who would then fall within the
very letter and protection fthc body Of the
section.
The proviso cannot fairly he made to
take the cnse out OF the generul clause OF
tho section, on tho ground that this il o
case iherpin "otherwise provided for. rs il
claimed, and then bo construed not to al
feet the case itself. and to leave 1t under
the net Of 1889, on the ground that It does
not apply To the case;at all! That would
be saying that It did and did not speak Of
the case.
The iden that the proviso docs not speak
:, Of the present Secretnry Of War arises. on
the very reasoning Of those who maintain
Il. out of the fallacy Of confounding the
subject of the proviso, (tho Secretary Of
War } with what Is affirmed OF tnat subject,
thus "wlnt is dcclircd or affirmed in the
proviso Of the Secretary Of War is, under
the circumstances. erroneous or non exist.
ing; therefore nothing Is declared OF the
subject, fthe Secretary OF Wary which Is
absurd. The second section plainly points
out, also, tho only way OF removal Of NIL
officers, but will, my views of the first Il IN
not necessary to enlarge upon It.
Il is said that this was not the intention
in fact when the law passed; and to prove
this the expression Of one or two Senator's.
made upon tho spur md ~ the hurry Of n
moment, are cited. dissent entirely from
anv sncl, inference, and from any snch
: rlAo Of interpreting or administering law.
ns law. With tile exception Of cenain
questions appealing to the will Of the whole
Ia .making power. and not necessary to be
now enumerated, the body Is responsible
for, and its will Is found in. what il. ,ln.
clures In It's laws, and not for. or in the
opinions Of its individual members. The
Journals ofihe Houses, even, cannot l,c 70
sorted TO for any such purpose. This is
the rule in all civilized countries, and is.
wi N tho solid reason for il, known TO every
lawyer.
Itis urged, as touching in some degree
the probable intent OF this proviso, that the
construction ] have put upon II would
work an inequality in the duntlon OF the
Offices of the various Secretaries, some
having been nppointedby Mr.. Lincoln. and
some by Mr. Johnson. u that were The
effect Il could not afler the plain construct
ion Of the law as applied to tho flint names
Secretaries. But no such results follows
The evident meaning of the worl "of, :"
used in the phrrso "dnring Tho term Of The
President by whom they may have been
appointed" being "relaling. or having rrf:
erence to-" tho word term" as there used
and applied, under The circumstances exist
ing, to nll the Secretnries-which embrace
both classes--related both to Mr.. Lincoln
and Mr.. Jnlnson, It related, as ] have
shown, to Mr.. Lincoln primarily and ex.
pressly. and II related to Mr.. johnson sub
modo, who, rs Vice President, was chosen
for, and who succeeded as President for,
the same tcrin," and who WINS, under The
qualifications Of the Constitution. filling
olit the expired term relating to Mr.. Lin
soln Thus, and in no other way, can NIL
the words ofthc proviso he mn,lc effective,
and a rniional anil just result I've reached.
Il appears TO me. therefore. without any
doubt, that the law IN question covers The
case. Il
Tic net, tllcnsprohibited the removal Of
Mr.. Stanton and the appointment Of Gener.
nj Thomas, and Il declared such removal or
appointment to be high nis'leneanor, and
denounced punishment against II.
l,n il is contende,l illnt, rs TIC articles
charge not only nn intentional doing of tho
net iorbiddcn-wllich the respondent nj
mits-but nIso an intent thereby 10 violate
the law and Constitition-wl'ich he denies
he cannot bc found guilty unless u IS
also proved that sucl, intent existed IN point
of fact. do not understand that To bc the
law. and I think no authority for such a
proposi,ion can bc found anywhere. Ger.
ininly tho cases cited by the counsel Tor The
rrspondent do not maintain II, unless It bo
CON needed ,lis, the dcscn ton therein spoken
Of as existing in tho course Of exercising
constitutional executive powers, or nnll'or'
iiy delegated by law. means d'scr'''on 10
decide whnt powers nro executive. ana
what authority is delegated, in spite OF tho
Constitution ,llat measures onh defines Tie
powers, and the law that conirrs the author
ity; proposition so contrary TO justice and
reason and so sulwcrsivc OF government,
that Il carries It's own reputation.
The philosophy and experiences OF ages
concur in the proTricty OF the maxim that
"ipnorsnce of the law exruseth no man."
For obvious reasons government of laws
could not exist if any man or officer ~ers to
he len to put his own construction upon, OF
10 form and aci upon his own views Of the
validity oftI,e laws framed for tho benefit
and protection ofall. Every citizen, either
10 or out Of ONCE, acts in the peril Of the
law. lf,ho respondent really believed that
.L:. ...~ ,,.. ,,os ,S;ths,, tho net nf Cou.