Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-02-25

his Oficlal functftna. siNe prONidol thtIe-
fore, gives no tenure Of Office to any one
of these officers who has been appointed
by the President, beyond one month |
after the accession of his successor.
In the case of Mr.. Stanton, the only |
appointment under which he held the /
Office of Secretary OF Var, was that /
conferred upon him by my immediate pre- |
deeessor, with the advice and consent of |
the Senate. He has never held from nae !
any appointment AZ the head of the War |
Department. Whatever right he had to |
hold the office was derived from that origi- !
nal appointment and my own influence.
The law was not intended to protect such I
an incumbent Of the War Department by |
taking from the President the power to re- |
move him. This, in my Judgment, is per-
fectly clear, and the law itself admits of no
other construction.
In all that portion of the first section |
which precedes the proviso, that as to civil |
officers generally, the President is deprived |
of the power of removal. And il is plain. |
that if there had been no proyiso, that
power would Just az clearly have been
taken from him, as far as it applies to the
several heads of departments, but for reasons
which were no doubt satisfactory to Con-
gress, these principal officers were specially
| provided for, and as to the express and
only requirements is that the President
who has appointed them, shall, without the
advice and consent Of the Senate, remove
them from Office. The consequence that
| a. 10 my Cabinet, embracing the officers
designated in the first section, the act takes
| from me the power without the concurrence
z Al A., A
| have appointed, but it does protect such
Of them as did not appoint, nor give to
them any tenure of office beyond my
pleasure. On examination of this act then,
It shows that while in one part of the sec
ton provision is made for officers gener-
ally, and in another clause there is a class
of oficers designated by their official title
who are exempted from the general terms
ofthe law, and in reference to whom q clear
distinction is made as to the general power
of removal. The first clause of the section
makes the distinction that such officers
enumerated al holding office under the
appointment of the President, the pow
sr of removal can only be exer-
cised by him with the consent of the Senate.
while as to those who have not been APP
pointed by him, there il no Likelihood of
denial of his power to displace them. II
would be violation Of the plain meaning
of this enactment to place Mr.. Stanton npon
this footing as these heads of departments
who have been appointed by me As 10
him, this law gives him no tenure of Office.
The members Of 10y 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..
| Stanton could not, against the wishes of my
| successor, hold moment thereafter. If
he was permitted by my successor TO hold
| for the first two weeks, would that success
sor have no power to remove him? but the
power of my successor over him would be
no greater than my own. If my successor
would have the power to remove Mr.. Stan
| ton, after permitting him to remain
| period of over two weeks, because he
was not appointed by him, but by his prede
! cessor, !, who have tolerated 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 ap-
pointed by me, but my predecessor. Under
this construction of the tenure Of Office
act, / have never doubted my power
to remove him, whether the act was consti- |
tutional or not and have always been Of
the opinion that it did not secure him from
a removal. | was aware, however, that
there were doubts az to the construction of
the law, and from the first deemed it de.
sirable that at the earliest possible moment
these doubts should be settled and the true
construction of the act fixed by the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Ny order of suspension in August
last was intended to place the case in such
a position as would make resort to iu-
dicial decision, both necessary and proper
NV understanding and wishes however, I'M
der that order of suspension was frustrated,
and the late order for Mr.. Stanton's re.
moval was further step toward the ac-
complishments of that purpose. i repeat
that my own conviction "a TO the true con-
struction of the law, and as to the consti-
tutionality were we'll settled, and were sus-
tanned by every member of nay Cabinet,
including Mr.. Stanton himself, upon the
question of constitutionality. Each one in
then deliberately advised me that the
tenure of office was unconstitutional.
Upon the question whether az to those
members who are appointed by my prede-
| cessor, that act took from me the power to
remove them, one Of these members in
the presence Of the othere, sitting in Cab
met, declared emphaticalIy they did not
come within the provisions of the act, and
it was no protection to them. No one dis-
scented from this construction, and under
stood them all TO acquiesce in its correct
ness. In matter of such grave
consequence, was not Disposed to
rest upon my own opinions, though
| fortified by my constitutional advisers. /
have, therefore, sought to bring the ques-
ton, at an early day as possible, before
the Supreme Court of the United States for
final and authoritative discussion. In re-
spect to so much Of the resolution as relates
to the designation of an officer TO act as
Secretary Of War ad interim, have only
20 say | have exercised this power under
the provisions of the first section of the
act of February 18th, 1895, which, so far as
they are applicable TO vacancy caused
by removals | understand tosbe still in
force. Thelegislalion for the subject Of al
interim appointments in the Executive
| Department stands az to the War Office az
follows: The action of the act Of the I'd Of
! August, 1898. made no provision for
vacancy. In the very case of a removal of
the head of the War Department, and
upon such a vacancy give the charge and
custody of the records books and papers to
the cheief clerk. Next, by the act ofthe 9Th
of May, 1872 section 6, it is provided,
that in case Of vacancy oecasioned by
death, absence from the seat of govern
ment, of sickness of the head Of the War
Department, the President may authorize
a person to perform the duties of the Office
until successor is appointed or the disa-
bility removed. The act, it will be OBJ
served, does not provide for the case OF
vacancy caused by removal. Then BY
the first section of the act of February
18th, 1895, it is provided that in case Of
any vacancy the President may appoint a
person to perform the duties while the
| vacancy exists. These acts are followed
by that Of the Goth of February, 1862, by
the first section of which provision is
again made for a vacancy caused by death,
resignation, absence from the seat Of gov
eminent, or sickness Of the head Of any
Executive Department, and upon the
occurrence of such a vacancy, power
is given to the President to authorize
the head of any other Executive Depart
meut, or other officer in either Of said de-