Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1868-04-10

numheys than on recent occasions. The
Cbief Justice inquired whether the Mana
pers had any further evidence TO introduce.
Mr. Butler responded In the affirmative.
The reading of the journal was dispensed
with.
Gen. Butler, on the part OF the Managers.
then called w. II. Wood, who was sworn,
Mr.. Butler stated the design was 10 prove
IS The witness, the Presidents hostility 10
Congress. Witness was from Alabama.
He iesuiied that he served in the Union
army. and 10 December, 1866, he called on
tue President. He IVES seeking govern
ment employment The President told
him he could do nothing for him, as his in
fiuence was on the side of Congress. while
those he appointed must be with him
Foster B!odgeit testified that he was sp.
pointed postmaster 1t Augusta, Georgia, in
lo65, and was suspended ID 1856 by the
President, and does not know as the Sen
etc had been notified Of that action.
TIE lesier Of 0ssesal Tho0as, accepting
The appointment Of Secretary Of War &C
intesi0 vas then pa IN evidence, when
Mr. Butler gave notice that the Managers
would die certificates with the proper ON
Gers To show that no reasons FOR SUSPENSION
had been sent TO the Senate.
Mr.. Butler then announced that the case
| on behalf ri the Houee was closed.
| Mr. Curtls then rose and commcnceo the
opepinp argument for the defence.
AIind,pe TO the character OF the trial, and
the oath taken by the senstors IN The ca
pac,y of Judges. he (Mr. Curtis) said the
| only appeal he should make would be to
the conscience and reason of every. Judge,
bssing his argument solely on the questions
of law and fact. He intimated that he
would subsequently combat the position
taken by the managers that this body was
| not essentially and in fact court, but At
present he would consider the articles ser-
ara,ely in order. The grayamen OF the
| charg.s Of the frat article was the removal
| of biantOn, and it WAS intended TO be in
violation OF the tenure Of Office act and The
| Constitution, he argued, to show that the
case of Mr. Stanton did not come within
the scope and provisions OF the tenure of
Office acl; maintaining that thu description
oil its office and Its tenure differed mate
rally in section and provso. MIR. Stanton
was appointed by Mr.. Lincoln in 1862. to
hold the Office during the term for which be
WIS elected, not during subsequent term
for which he might be elected. II could
not be said that Mr. johnson 10 serving out
the time OF Mr.. Lincoln. The term for
which a President Ia elected, 10 not
absolutely four years but IL limited by
life and ability. Mr.. Curtis read the first
section Of the tenure OF Office act.
and said there was . purpose In the differ
ence Of the phraseology between this sec
ton and its provieo The Constitution
authorizes the President to call upon men,
bers of bis Cabinet for advice respecting
matters concerning his own duties as we'll
"a respecting matters connected with their
various Departments, and such had been the
invariable practice since the foundation Of
the Government they were the voice and
hands Of the President !; in them he was to
| repOse confidence. and for them be was to
be responsible. For this reason they were
placed by the tenure of Office, in the same
position a. the President by whom they
appointed. They were TO serve out his term
Of office, but as holding over, the case was
different.
Mr.. Curtis proceeded to show what the
feeling and intention Of both Houses was
In framing and passing this bill. maintain
ing that they were In accordance with the
views he had just expressed. He said that
the 9th article fOrbids any removals con.
trary to the provisions Of the oct. but ms
Stanton did not yield. there was no reno va
ard il there had been this would not have
been a violation of the act, since he had
just shown that Stanton did not come with
IN its provisions. The House Of Representa-
lives charges the President with an inten-
tional violation of the act. The first ami
last duty OF the President Is TO construe an
act and decide what is its true meaning.
This duty he performed as the Constitution
provides. with his Constitutional advisers,
and they all put the same construc-
ton on the act as had been assigned
TO IL by is ffemers. The case of
Stanton IS of actually holding Office under
the law OF 1889 without expressly giving
power to the President to remove him, i'm
plies what shall be lone by the President
| alter the removal. Nothing in the ConsLi
| tuition fol bids the excel ton Of this power
by the President, independently OF the Sen
ate decision ol the Congress of 1889, affirm,
| by the implication that such . power was
granted the President by the Constitution,
and neither subsequent legislation nor
amendment to the Constitution denied 1t.
as with ss the ;s was II
of the civil war the War Department was
in disloyal hands Tho President told
Floyd that he must give it up. Floyd had
too much good sense and something else 10
refuse. Without this action there is no
telling what consequences might have en-
sued.
| After having argued the right Of removal
he proceeded To argue its propriety and ne
cessity. The President took no extreme
ground, but while believing 1t his duty to
see the laws promptly executed, still, in
cases where portion of his prerogatives
| are sought to be invaded and no one else
| can raise the question, Must be do III"
Suppose law was passed depriving him OF
his power az Communicating Chief, would
IL not be his duty 10 oppose it, SO as TO bring
about IA decision. A power derived by i'm
plicsiion IS as unasssilabie as one directly
granted by the Constitution. The counsel
do not conceive it 10 be essential to their
case To maintain his position, but deem il
plainly proved.
Mr.. Curtis then enumerated some of the
considerations which had Influenced the
President.
On r, assembling at $50 Mr.. Morrill, moved
to adjonrn Negatived by % to 9
NJ. Curtis Resumed his argument and
cited and claimed that the power of re-
moval being subject To legislative enact
ment hal AT lesst never been established 90
clearly that 10 act on Al opposite view was |
presumptively crime. He then advanced |
An argument 10 apply the Tenure of Office |
to Stanton would violate the agreement of |
the Senate In allowing him to hold Office |
during the pleasure OF the President Re. |
cspiiu atiDg his arguments to prove that the
President could MOI be impes ched for an
ACT designed merely To procure Z judicial
decision or disputed point ne quoted from
Mr. Buffers speech. to show the managers
admitted this view. The managers claimed
that the reason for removing Sir. Stant,u
assigned by the President was an
afterthought, and he was estoppei
from now divulging it by certain things be
had done. and said that previously the rule
OF estopped was Of very limited sprlica-
ton, and could not be used to convict Der.
son Of crime. The President avoided a
conflict with 1t, but when proper occasion
arose he asserted own views without be.
Ing prejudiced wi, .Jrmer action. Ia re
gard to lesser matters, the change made In
The form OF commissions does mot state or
determine where the power Of removal Is
lodged. but merely acknowledges IL q cx-
lssing somewhere BY virtue Of the laV
Al this point Mr. Curtis besecd nsrm,s.
sion TO suspend hts remarks tili fo.morrov
~ he Was greatly fasigued.
The Court accordingly adjourned a 3:45
and the Senate went Into executive sess,on
and soon after adjourned.
HousR - Mr.. Chandler offered reaolu.
lions which were referred to the Committee