The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-05-08


With all respect to the honorable man.
ager he must say that he did not think
Mr.. Boutwell's conclusions as to the re-
suit of that debate were at all author
lied by the debates themselves.
The only question discussed and set
tied in that debate was whether the
power of removal was lodged in the
President alone or lodged in the Presi-
dent and Senate, and it was decided
that the power was vested in the Pres
ident alone. The First Congress passed
a number of acts upon this subject and
among them three acts establishing
the three Executive departments, and
in the language of Chief Jnstice' Mar
shall, it had to avoid such legislation as
would make the constitutional inter
pretation unstable. These laws were
in force to this day. They were pro-
fessedly interpretations of the Consti-
tuition and had been so declared by the
Supreme Court; by all the Presidents
since the days of Washington; so de-
oared by the Congress that passed
them, and so declared by all Congress
es down to the Thirty-ninth. Mr..
Groesbeck then came down nine years
later. and reviewed the action Of Con-
gress in 1898 when the Navy Depart
ment was formed, and when the pow
er of removal was recognized as in the
President alone Twenty-seven years
nter the Postofice department was or
ganized and this principle was also
recognized. 1t was also recognized in
the establishment of the Interior de-
partment in the creation Of the AttOr-
rev Generals Office. All these officials
had taken their commissions for and
during the pleasure of the President
for the time being. He also cited laws
relating to the appointment of Post
masters and other subordinate officers
as recognizing this same principle. If
all the laws of Congress were collected
from 1889 to 1867 which affirmed the
construction that the President had
the power of removal, they would av-
erage two or three to each Congress.
The law of March, 1867 alone came i'll
to break upon the concurrent chain of
constitutional Interpretation. But he
would ask if human reason might not
pause and human judgment, doubt at
this time upon this question? All the
Presidents had affirmed this cOnstitu-
tional Interpretation and acted upon it
for eighty years; the Supreme Court
had affirmed it; thirty EIGHT Congress
es had concurred in it. All this was on
the one side of the question that the
President had the constitutional right
to make removals, while on the other
side there was but the act Of one Con-
gress. Might not, then, human reason
pause and human Judgment doubt up
on the construction Was it criminal
in the President to stand by that great
mass of precedent, and to believe as
thirty-eight Congresses had believ-
ed, and as the Supreme Court had
affirmed, that the power Of remov-
al from Office was vested by
the Constitution in the President
That was the question this Court must
decide. Did the Senate believe if at
the time Andrew Johnson honestly
thought that the Constitution lodged
the power of removal in the hands of
the President, that he is guilty Of crime
for acting upon the thought? What
should be the effect of the long line OF
Interpretation by every department
of the Government? Stability was as
much needed in regard to powers not
explained in the Constitution as in re-
gard to those that are explained. II
the construction of one of the Presi-
dents powers was to be fixed by inter
pretatiOn and decision, when was it to
be regarded as fixed? In five hund-
years? In four hundred years? In
one hundred years? All will agree to
that. Well, here we have a Constitu-
ton and an Interpretation existing for
seventy-eight years, and this should
establish it. The Thirty-ninth Con-
gress alone has given different in
depreciation of the Constitution. He
(Mr. g. did not propose to institute
any comparison between that Congress
and the Congresses that had preceded
it. He would not say that it was not
just as able as any other congress, but
he did say that it was no better. And
this brought us down to the question il
the Senate would drive the President
from office and convict him of crime
because he believed as all his predecess-
ors believed, and as thirty-eight Con
crosses believed? Was Mr.. Johnson
to lie down with his hands upon his
mouth and his mouth in the dust, and
be deprived Of his just powers; or was
he to stand up as the Chief Magistrate
of mighty nation and defend the in.
tegrity of his Department? 1t was fol
the President to execute laws, to exc.
cute even doubtful laws; but when he
was called upon to execute a law a
gainst which all precedents were array.
ed, was he not justified in seeking tc
get a judicial Interpretation of the
question, and was the Senate to under
take to brand hin with criminality be-
cause ne proposed to go to the Supreme
Court and have the question settled
! forever?