New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-02-26
APP InuNSoN,S PLEA.

Obeyed the Tenure-of Office law; secondly,
that in the same act he disobeyed the law IN
order to test its cOnsttutionality thirdly, that
there was no opportunity for him to obey or
disobey the law, since it had no application
whatever to the case of Mr.. Stanton. Mr.
Johnson seems to have borrowed his defense
from that of the defendant in the Kettle case,
who plead that the kettle in question was
cracked when he borrowed it, that 1t was
whole when he returned it, and that he never
had known of such kettle, and did not be-
Ieye there ever was any. 1t is sometimes pos
sible for man to get too many points in his
case, and we think Mr.. johnson has few too
many in his.
He first argues that the Tenure Office law
prohibits him fEom removing only those Cabi-
net officers who were nominated by him, and
confirmed by the Senate, leaving him free to
remove those who were appointed during
LincOus Administration. He seems to suppose
the Republican Senate were quite willing to
have him get rid of Lincoln's appOintees, VIZ.
Seward, McCulloch, Stanton, aud Welles, and
were in special terror lest he should remove
his own appointees, viz. Stanbery, kandah,
and Browning AS matter of fact, he knows
that the political divergence between Stanton
and himself on the reconstruction question had
developed ITSELF and was generally known
before the Tenure of Office law was passed,
and that part Of the special intent of the Law
was to keep Secretary Stanton and the rest OF
Iincoln's Cabinet in Office. lie rests this point
on the following clause of the Tenure f-Otfce
law:
That overy person holding any civil Office to which he
has been appointed by and with the ADVICE ana cQnse
appointed TO any such Office and shall become 9uy quail
a S 10 Sn a. shall have been ia like
appointed and duly qualified, except as herein Otherwise
Proridd That the Secretaries OF state OF the Treasury
of War OF the Navy aud of the INTERIOR the
rospectyeis for and during tho OF the President BY
whom they may have been appointed snd for one month
thereafter subject to removal by and with the ADVICE
and consent OF the senate.
The obvious intent of the above proviso was
TO give the Cabinet offers a fixed term OF
office, instead of leaving them TO be removed
at pleasure Us heretofore. Nothing was more
proper than that this term should correspond
TO the term of the President by whom they
were appointed, so that the old President and
his advisers might go ont together, and newly
elected President might be free to select his
own advisers. If the law had declared that
Cabinet officer should "hOld his term for four
years. then, if appointed like Stanbery or
Browning in the middle of one Administration,
they would hold over until the middle OF the
next. To avoid this their term was made for
and during the term of the President by
"wLom they may have been appointed But
it is obvious that the gist of the paragraph was
TO state the duration of their term of office by
some general criterion, not to except nearly the
whole of Andrew Johnson's Cabinet from the
defense afforded by the law. Let us see if the
language differs from the intentl The term OF
the President by whom Mr.. Stanton was
appointed is the second term Of Abraham
Lincoln, which Andrew johnson is serving out
instead of Mr.. Lincoln deceased, as Vice
President and "actingn President. Andrew
johnson never had any term" as President.
He merely succeeded to the right to serve out the
remainder of Mr.. Lincoln's term. Indeed, he
is not President, but only acting President for
the Constitution does not provide that on the
death of the President the Vice-President shall
become President, but only that he shall per-
form the duties of President. Hence the Ten
llre-of- Office law, in enacting that the members
of the present Cabinet should "hOld their Office
respectively for and during the term of the
and for one month thereafter, empowered them
TO hold their offices to the end of Mr. Lincoln's
second term, which will be on the 4th of March,
1869. That Mr.. johnson should be unable to
see SO plain a point shows how stupidity he
assumes to deal with questions Of constitutional!
law.
But his first point, that the Tenure-of-Ofiice
act gave him the right to remove Stanton, Is
best overthrow by his second point, Wis that
no removed him in order to test the constitu-
tionality of the Tenure Of Office law. For If
the order removing Stanton was in accordance
with the act, the constitutionality of the law
would not come into question. If, as the Presi-
dent claims, he can only test the constitution
atty of the law by disobeying it, and if, as he
also claims he has not disobeyed it, then with
what sense can he claim to be engaged in test
ing its consttutionality 7 Finally, in pleading
a statute passed in 1889 as authority for making
the ORDER the President in effect affirms that
the Tenure Office act does not bear
upon the question of Mr.. Stanton's
either to permit or to for
bid it. For if the Tenure Of-0fiice act OF
1867 permits it, the act of 1889 is wholly
iITelevant and if the act of 1857 forbids 1t,
then the act of 1850 is repealed Thus Mr..
Johnson's several defenses, first, that in remov-
ing Stanton he has obeycd the Tenure-ot-
Office bill; and, secondly, that in removing
Stanton he has disobeyed it, in order to test
its constitutonality and, thirdly, that the
Tenure Of Office bill in no way bears upon his
right to make the order, each Overthrows the
others.
Mayor Hoffman deserves the thanks of the
ia, g. ,>o,,o,s e,r hio ,yeto of tba (,ornorafiou