The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-25

1t has been stated in some newspapers, and
the impression appears to prevail generally,
that the ''act regulating the tenure of certain
civil Offices" deprives the President, abso-
lutely of the power of removal. The ques-
ton has arisen in the case of the appoint
ment of Gen. Wisewell to succeed Commits
sioner Rollins, and of Mr.. Woolfey to sue
ceeded Mr.. Ready as assessor of internal
revenue in this district, whether the mere
sending of the names of new appointees to
the Senate does not constitute removal, and
whether such removal is not in opposition to
the ''tenure of Office" act. An examination
of the law shows that no such construction
can properly be placed upon it. The first
section declares that officers shall continue
to act until their successors are duly APP
pointed and qualifed-except in the case of
cabinet officers, whose term extends to one
month beyond that of the President by
whom they may have been appointed.
This section does not affect the
power of removal and appointment
when those powers are concurrently exercised,
and when the successor to an officer properly
removed, is confirmed and qualified. The
second section confers on the President the
right to suspend "during the recess of the
Senate, and such suspension, and the reasons
therefor, must be reported to the Senate
within twenty days after the date of its next
meeting. 1t is plain that this limitation and
this condition are contrived in order that the
Senate may participate with the President in
the power of removal, as well as in the power
of appointment. But no such conditions are
imposed during the session of the Senate. If
the President send in the name of person
whom he desires to appoint to a particular
Office, he thereby intimates his desire to re-
move the actual incumbent; and if the Senate
confirm the new appointment, the incumbent
is, necessarily, ipso Jact0 removed. If the APP
pointment be rejected the old officer holds
over under the first section, which authorizes
him to do so until his successor shall be ap-
pointed, confirmed and qualified. The mere
sending of a name to the Senate is not a re-
moval under the terms of the law; nor does
the law impose any prohibition ON the Presi-
dent, in this respect
In the case of cabinet officers the law pro-
vides a specific duration of their term
Properly construed, this clause would operate
to terminate the tenure of said offices at the
close of the period specified. But it does not
prohibit the President from removing them,
because all such laws must be construed with
relation to the constitutional rights Of the APP
pointing power. If there is anything more
clear than another, it is that the President has
the right to appoint and remove his cabinet
officers at will; and this right cannot be
abridged by law. Nor does the law attempt
to abridge it. Its only effect is, as we have
said, to afix definite term to the tenure of
Office of cabinet functionaries, so that at the
end of the period stated their commissions
would expire by limitation. But that term
may be abbreviated in any one of several
ways-by death, by resignation, or by re-
moval; and either one of these would be quite
as effective as the others. We presume that
this is the line of defense indicated by the
Presidents counsel when they deny that the
removal of Mr.. Stanton violated, or was in
tended to violate the "tenure of Office" act.