The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-26
NEW YORK HERALD SUNDAY, APRIL 2e 1863 TRIPLE SHEET.


under tie commission given him, and
moi under the law. But Senator's his tenure of
once Cannot be changed extended from lIs cont
Mr. r. ss s w ne M ss zee e ns o s
OF the President for time being. This law nronoses
70 give nm q term OF four years and one montn
the United States extend the term in this manner?
An Office only he held by the appointment of the
President. His nomination and his appointment
must cover the whole term which the appontee
c'ams Ia any other theory the CONGRESS OF me
persons appointed indefinitely through years
and years, and thus defeat the constitutional
provision that the President shan nominate
and Shall appoint for ONCE for the whole
term for which he was appointed. Thus, prac-
tcaliy, Senators, it appears that the law cannot
at the time OF its passage Take the case of an on
Ger who holds his commission at the pleasure OF the
President. What Is the character OF that, >nurel
II Is no tenure known to the law; 1t is tenure OF
at snIerance, at will To convert that into tenure
Tor fixed period Is to enlarge it, to extend it, to in
fore. And II the Office be one that cannot be filled
without Presidential nomination and appointment
cannot be extended and controlled In this way. This
appears to be the construction OF the act OF March
am 70 e ~ NV "nin,on no
where he was before its passage 1t Is further to be
shown that the act Of March z 1867 has no repeat
previous laws applicable to this case, to those
averments Of the constitution and the act OF 1885,
BY the provisions Of this law it is provided among
other things chat there shall be executive depart
ment. denominated the Department OF War; and that
there shall be principal ocer therein to be called
the Secretary for the Department OF War, who shall
perform and execute such duties as shall from time
to time be enjoned upon him, and who shall conduct
the President Of the United States shall from time to
time order and instruct; and there shall be in the
by said principal officer, to be employed therein as
ne sha, deem proper to be called the Chief Clerk Of
principal officer shall be removed from rom
ONCE by the President Of the United States,
have any vacancy he Is shan han
law to which we are referred unless the act reguat
sion that was issued to Mr. Stanton to ~ 'e arna the
pleasure Of the President for the time being framed
upon TINS law the President had the right to remove
Mr.. Stanton according to his pleasure.
At this point the attempt OF the counsel to speak
was with so much apparent effort that Senator Fes-
sender proposed that the counsel should have per-
mission to suspend his argument for the present. or
until after another argument has been presented on
the part OF the Managers.
Mr. GROEsBECK returned his thanks to the Senator
Ior MS kindly suggestion, but saying he would be
very thankful for the attention of the Senate to what
found himself, he thought he would prefer to go on
with his argument to its conclusion. He then con-
argued this that there has been no such case az
the removal OF the head OF department without the
cooperation OF the Senate and that this construc
ton, which we claim as applicable to this law does
not apply Let me call your attention to the docu-
ments as found on pages S57 to 359 Of these proceed
under one OF the extreme laws that were passed by
the First Congress under the constitution give
follows:-
SRDvers and considerations essential to the ad
Rs # as o %
from any . JOHN Ser HbsS sfssr essD Of s s
To TIMOTHY PICKERING.
That was the act OF John Adams by whose casting
vote in the Senate this blu was passed. That was
done according to the construction that was given
to the BILL and as an act OF outright removal during
the session Of the Senate, without the cooperation
addressed to the Secretary in his Office declaring him
removed, and when Mr.. Adams comes to send his
not Of in psss NJ Mr. cses to
removed with their assent, but in place of
NTH sse aw en- sy VIII Or in
there is no doubt about 1t. II John Adams, who |
passed this law in the Senate by his casting VOTE had
az decided to be In the law in his own hands, do the
gentlemen suppose that he would have taken the
some such course as this:-"Senators, propose for
your consideration the removal OF Mr.. Pickeringf''
is the true construction, according his own inter-
probation and according to the Interpretation given
1861 Done While the Senate was in session: done by
himself, without consultation with the co-opera-
ton Of the Senate. And that was the form which he
adopted when he did remove him, as distinct
adopted from that day to this. While upon this
language of John Marshall in the case OF Marbury
VS.. Madison. He was discussing the question OF
pete, SO that it Withdrawn from the control OF
the President. He held that 1t complete when
the discussion he goes on to say:DaWhen the Officer
is removable by the President at the will of the Exc.
by 70 mas always been
so the commission ran removable at the pleasure
OF the President for the time being" whenf la
his pleasure" are the language of the commission
and the authority that controls the commission and
the law. So 1t has always been construed. Now SEN
ators, II am right in the view have here briedy
taken Mr.. Stanton was not covered by the law and
was subject to removal under the commission which
he received from Mr. Lincoln and under the law OF
1889. beg you 10 observe that that law Is In full
force. There is attempt to repeal It in the act OF
clause What them what becomes Of ' the arst
eight articles Of this casef Let stand at this |
observation from which to look at these acts We |
have removed one difflcuty-we have ascertained |
one fact. Then Mr.: stanton can be removed by the
President. i should like to lnger longer on this
question, and II had voice sufficient should like |
TO call your attention TO some other points. should
especially the pertinent language OF the Senator on
the committee that reported this bill should like to
this chamber before the bill was passed; but pass
on, and ask you, Senators, to pause here moment |
at this point OF observation and look this case
We have borne down the main structure Of this great
argument Take out the single question OF the power
OF removal Of Mr. Stanton from these eight articles
and they are without support and all you have left |
TO consider s the single question OF the right TO CON
fer the letter OF authority upon Lorenzo Thomas. |
Why, Senator'S shall than that II this be
So All through these questions which have occupied
much OF the attention Of the court vanish out OF
sight, for II we mad this power we had the right to
remove. and we were not bound to come to court |
to ascertain that fact. Senator'S, allow me |
Suppose Mr.. Stanton Ia within the Tenure OF
Office act what them The question then
comes for your consideration whether the
President is criminal In acting upon the supposition
that he was not within the actS Now this inquiry
does not challenge the constutionality OF the law
II Is question OF Interpretation or construction OF
doubtful law. Is there q Senator in this chamber |
who will not admit whatever his view may be upon |
this subject that 10 was not law upon which anyone
might not adopt this constructions Why, I believe |
that majority OF the Senators In this chamber are
of the opinion that 1t does not apply TO the case OF
Mr.. Stanton and IL they did think that II does
there would be very small majority certainly who
would say there room for doubt as In tho |