The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-02-25

| tbis act does. not purpOrt to confer
mower by legislative authority, nor in
set was there any other existing legis-
lation through which it was bestowed
upon the Executive. The recognition of
power by this act is therefore as COM
plete as recognition under the Consti-
tuition itself. There was no other
source or authority from which, 1t could
be derived. The other act which refors
to this question, and that regulating the
tenure of certain civil officers, passed
by Congress, End day of March, 1867.
The first section of that act is in the fol-
lowing words: =,
"That every person holding any civil
office to which no has been appointed
I By, and with the advise and consent OF
the Senate, and any person who shall
hereafter be appointed to any such OF
fee. and shall become duly qualified to
act therein, is and shall be entitled to
hold Office until a successor shall have
been in like manner appointed, ana
duly qualified except as herein or other
wise provided That the Secretary OF
State, of Treasury, of War, of Navy, OF
Interior. the Postmaster General and
| Attorney Geueral shall hold their offices
respectiyely for and during the term OF
the President by whom they have been
appoipted and for one month thereafter
subject to removal by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate. The
4th section of the same act restricts the
test-oath of Office to limit those prescrib-
ed by law creating them, and that part
of the lst section which precedes the
proviso declares that every person hold
| ing civil office to which he has been
or may he appointed by the, adj
vice and consent of the Senate
shall hold such office until successor
shall have bccn in like manner appoint
ed. 1t purports to take from the EX-
ecutive during the fixed time estab-
lished for tenure of office, the indepen-
dent power of removal, and to require
for such removal the concurrent action
of the President and Senate.
The provisO that follows proceeds TO
fix the term of office of the several
heads of departments whose tenure
never had been defined before
by prescribing that they shall
hold their office, respectively, for and
during the term of the President by
whom they may have been appointed,
and for one month thereafter, subject
to removal by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. Thus as to these
enumerated officers, the proviso takes
from the President the power OF re-
moval, except with the advice and con
sent of the Senate. BY its terms, how
ever, before he can be deprived OF
power to displace them, it must appear
that he himself has appointed them; 1t
| is only in that case they have any ten
ure of office or any independent right
| to hold during the term of the Presi-
dent, and one month after the cessation
of his official functions; the proyiso,
therefore, gives no tenure OF office
to any one of these officers
who has been appointed by the Presi-
dent beyond one month after the &C.
cessiom of his successor. In the case OF
Mr.. Stanton, the only appointment
under which he held the Office as Secre-
tary of War, was that conferred upon
him by my immediate predecessor,
with the advice and consent of the Sen
ate. He has never held from me any
appointment rs the head of the War
Department, and whatever right
he had 10 hold Office was de-
rived from that original appointment,
and my own Suiferance. The law was
not intended to protect such an incum-
bent i'll the War Department by taking
from the President the power to remove
him. This, in my Judgment, is perfect
" clear, and the law itself admits of no
other construction. We find in all that
portion of the first section which pre-
cedcs the proviSo that as to civil officers
generally the President is deprived
OF the power OF removal, aud ii
| is plain that if there had been
no proviso that power would
Il Just as clearly have been taken from
him, so far as it applies to the seven
heads of departments; but for reasons
which were no doubt satisfactory to
Congress, these principal officers were
specially provided for, and as their eX-
press and only requirement. is that
| the President who has appoint
ed them shall not, without the
advice aud consent of the Senate,
remove them from Office. The conse-
guence is that as to my Cabinet, en-
| bracing the seven officers designated In
the first section, the act takes from me
! the power, without the concurrence OF
| the Senate, to remove any one OF them
/ have appointed, but it does not pro-
tect such of them as did not appoint,
nor give to them any tenure Of office
beyond my pleasure.
An examination of this act then shows
that while in one part of the section
provision is made for the officers gen.
orally and in another clause there Is a
class of officers designated by their off
cial titles vino are exempted from the
general terms of the law, and in
reference 20 whom clear dis
tinctiOn is made as to general
power of removal, limited in the first
clause of section. This distinction is
that as To each of these enumerated of
ficers as hold under appointment of the
President, the power OF removal
can only be exercised by him with the
consent of the Senate, while as to those
who have not been designated by him
there is no like denial of his. power to
! displace them. 1t would be violation
of the plain bearing of this enactment
to place Mr.. Stanton upCn this footing,
as those 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 month after
the term of my Office shall cease; but
Mr.. Stantoa could not, against the
wishes of nay successor, hold q moment
thereafter. If he were permitted
by that successor to hold for
the first two wrecks. would
that successor have no power to remove
hint But the power of my successor over
him could be no greater than my own.
If my successor would have power to
remove Mr.. Stanton, after permitting
him to remain period of two weeks,
because he was not appointed by him,
but by his predecessor, l, who have toll
Grated Mr.. Stanton for more than two
years, certainly have the same
right TO remove him and
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, have never
doubted my power to remove him,
whether the act was constitutional or
not. was always of opinion that 1t
l. 7