Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-04-10


sense. and something else, to refuse, and
without this immediate action there
is no telling what disastrous conse-
quences might have ensued, by Mr..
Lincoln not havisg the right Of removal.
Mr.. Curtis then proceeded to argue its
propriety and necessity, as in this case.
He cited the circumstances attending the
first correspondence with Mr.. Stanton,
and his suspension, and went on to claim
that there might be circumstances in
which the highest patriotism and duty
required citizen to raise the question
of the validity and binding force of law.
Such, he said, would be the. duty OF o
trustee in the protection Of the rights OF
third parties, who were unable to assert
them and assist them, and such was the
duty, nobly fulfilled, by Hampden when
he opposed the payment Of the ship
money. The President took no extreme
ground, but while believing it his duty to
see that the laws are faithfully executed,
still in cases where portion Of his pre-
negatives are sought to be invaded, and
no one else can raise the question, he
must do it. Suppose law was passed to
deprive him of his power as Commander.
in-Chief, would it not be his duty to OPP
pose it, so as to bring about decision
by the courts? A power derived by i'm
plication is as unassailable as one di-
rectly granted by the Constitution. The
counsel do not conceive it to be essen
tial to their case to maintain this posi-
ton, but deem that it is plainly proved.
he then enumerated some of the consid-
erations which had influenced the Presi-
dent, and referred to Story's Commenta-
ries on the Constitution and other
authorities to show that the rule of con-
struction in practice was the best expo
nent of law. From 1889 to 1857, every
President and every Congress has par
ticipated in and acted under the con-
struetion of former years, namely, that
the President has the sole power of re.
moval. Mr.. Curtis cited numerous au-
thorties and decisions to prove that the
effect Of cotemporaneous legislative con-
struction is to fix and determine the
Interpretation of laws. He referred
to the different opinions advanced during
the debate on the subject in 1889, and
claimed that the construction that the
power of removal was subject to legis.
lative enactment had, at least, never
been established so clearly, and that to
act on the opposite view was presump-
tuously a crime. He then advanced an
argument that to apply the Tsnure-of-
Office law to Stanton would be to violate
an agreement made by the Senate in
confirming his appointment to hold office
during the pleasure of the President,
recapitulating his arguments to prove
that the President could not be i'm
peached for an act designed merely to
procure judicial decision or disputed
point. He quoted from Buffers speed
to show that the managers admitted this
view, and had said that the removal in
itself was, perhaps, not an impeachable
offense, if made with a foreign nation, and
not accompanied with defiant message
to the Senate. Curtis said it was a matter
of taste as to how they should be notified.
The managers claimed that the reason
for removing Stanton assigned by the
President, was an after thought, and he
was estopped from it now, alleging by
certain things he had done and said pre-
viously. He had argued that the rule OF
estopped was of a very limited ap-
plication, and could not be used
to convict person OF crime nor be
brought forward in this case, To
have informed the Senate of his rea-
son would have been construed into
threat, and now,the managers claim that
he was too dQferential. There was no
inco ssistency in the Presidents action
in regard to this law. Every day in
courts positions we're maintained in a
similar case. An individual may set up
a plea in regard to law: lst, that it is
unconstitutional; I'd, that it does not
apply to himself; Sd, that if it is law hs
can maintain his case under it. So long
as the Tenure Of. Office law affected I'm.
important matters. the President has
avoided a conflict with it, but when
proper occasion arose, be as
serted bis own views without being
preiudiced by former action in re-
gard to lesser and unimportant matters.
The change made in the form Of commits
sions does not state or tend to determine
who're the power of removal is lodged,
but merely acknowledged it.as existing
somewhere by virtue Of law.
At this point Mr.. Curtis begged per
mission to suspend his remarks until to-
Morrow, as he was greatly fatigued. Tbs
Court accordingly adjourned at 3;45 p m.
and the Senate went into executive ses-
sion and soon after adjourned.
|
corv.n,ion-neoision of the Democratic