Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-22

and in the preseT CO of the action Of the Firs,
| Congress, by virtue OF which the President, he
sald, now cislms an absolute. unqualified, IL
| responsible power over all public officers, and
| this without the adyice and consent of the Sen :
ate, or the concurrence Of any other branch of
| the Government He reviewed the practice of
| said IL might be well observed that for the pnr-
poses Of this trial, and upon the question
whether the President is or is not guilty under
tne nrst three articles e1hibIted against him by
the House OF Representatives, Ii is of no conse
| quenee whether the President of the United
states mas power TO remove a civil officer dur
ing recess OF the Senate: The fact charged and
proved against the President, and on which. as
one TACT proved against him, they demand his
conviction, is. that he attempted to remove MIR
Stanton from the office OF Secretary of War dur
ING session of the Senate. 1t cannot be claimed
with any Propriety that the act of 1889 can b
Construed as grant OF power to the President
70 an extent beyond the practice of the govern.
lnfnt ior three q uarters of century under the
constitution, and under the provisions of the
law OF 1859. one of the predecessors OF Mr.
johnson, from General Washington to Mr..
Lincoln, although the act of 1889 was in exis-
tenoe during all that period, had ever yentured
10 lain that either under chat act or by virtue
OF the Consti tuuon, the President of the United
states mad power TO remove civil officer dur
ing session of the Senate, without its consent
and advice Hence 1t is that the act of 17Sa is
no security to this respondent and hence il is
that they held him guilty of a violation of the
constitution and of his oath of Office, under
the first and third articles Of i'm mpeachment, ex-
MIN Dy 1ne House OF Reupre-
sentatiyes. ard this without availing them
selves OF the provisions of the tenure .of. office
act of March .. 1867.
Mr.. b. then passed to the consideration of
the act of the 18th of February, 1875. on which
he said the President relies as a justification
for his appointment of Lorenzo Thomas al Sec
ietary OF War cd interim; and argued that when
II was considered as he bad shown, that the
President had no power-and tins without CON-
slderlng the fenure-of-offce act of March ,,
lS'--to create vacancy during the session of
he 1T tpfl-
struction, furnishes defence whatever But
II he had possessed the power which he claims
by virtue OIL the act of 1889, the vacancy referred
10 In the act OF 1875 is not such a vacancy as is
caused by the removal of public Off Ger, but that
that act is limited to those vacancies which arise
uhaVoldably in the public service, and without
the agency of the President. But there is iu the
section Of act OF 1876, on which the President
relies, proyiso which nullifies absolutely the
defence which he has set mp. This proviso is,
that no one vacancy shall be supplied i'm man.
her aforesaid that is. by a temporary appoint
ment) for longer term than SIX months The
TACT is; however, that the statute of1.a5 is re.
9TH Of February, 1853
Quoting the law in support of this. Mr..
boutwell, said that if the view he had present
eu was a sound one, ii l. apparent that the
PRESIDENTS conduct finds DO support either in
the CONSTITUTION, i'll the act of l7s9, or in the
IegIslationV nVf1ia5 on which he chiefly relies as
n justification lor the appointment OF Thomas
as Secretary of War dd interim II follows
also, that II the Tenure-of-ofiice act had not
ocen passed the President would have been
guilty OF high misdemeanor. that he lss ned
an order for the removal of Mr.. stanton Fl ON
once during the session of the Senate in yio-
laIloh OF the Constitution and his own oath of
ONCE. that he was guilty of high misdemean.
or IN the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas as
Secretary OF War I'd interim. and this whether
the act Of the 18th of February, 1885, is iu force
OF Whether the same has been repealed by the
statute of 1s62, or annulled and rendered obso-
leie by The intervening legislation of the coun
Try. His guilt is thus fully proved and estab-
nshed as charged in the first, second. and third
arueies OF impeachment exhibited against him
by the House OF Representatives, and this
Wlthout considering the requirements or con.
stltutionality of the act regulating the tenure OF
certain civil offices.
MI. Boutwell, then passed TO the con sdera.
non of The tenure-of-oiiice ACT, which he argued
makes no change in the powers of the presi
dent and The Senate, during the session OF the
senate 10 remove a civil officer upon a nomi.
nation by the Presid and confirmation bv
W. senate, OF successor. This an ad-
mited constitutional power from the very or.
gahizaiion of the Government. while the right
now claimed by the President TO remoy. a civil
,in TnesI curing session OF the Senate. without
me advice and consent of the Senate was ne yer
REQ by any OF his predecessors, and Ger
albiy never recognized by any law or by any
practice. This rule applied to heads OF de-
paitnents as well as TO other civil officers
indeed, 1t may be said, once for all. that the
tenure by which members of the Cabinet have
n hria tnslr places corresponds in every particu-
lar TO the tenure by which other civil officers
have held theirs. II is undoubtedly true that,
In practice, members Of the Cabinet have been
accustomed to tender their designations upon
suggestion from the President that such
course would be acceptable to him Eut this
practice has never changed their legal relations
10 the President or 10 the country. There
was never q moment of time, since
the adoption Of the Constitution, when the
law or the opinion of the Senate recognized the
rlght OF the President to'remove a Cabinet Of
ncer otrlng session of the Senate, without
the consent of the Senate given through the
eohnrmation OF a successor. Hence, IN this
Parueuiar the tenure-of-oftce act merely en-
aeted and gave form 10 practice existing from
the foundation of the Governmental practice
I'D entire harmony with the provisions of the
.S Gonstl,unSn. The record Of the case shows
that MI stanton was suspended from office
curing the recess, but was removed from Of
nee as lar as an order of the President could
eneet ms removal during session OF the Sen |
ate tits wholly immaterial to the present IN.
curry whether the suspension Of Mr. Stanton
on the I2th of August, ls67, was made under
W., .he act or in disregard to il. as
tDe President now asserts. 1t being thus clear
that so much of the act as relates to appoiut.
ments and removals from Office during the ses.
SION OF the Senate is in harmony with the prac.
tIce OF the Government from the first, and in
harmony with the prov visions of the Constitu.
uon on which that practIce was BASED, and il
being admitted that the order Of the President
for the removal of Mr.. Stanton was issued |
curing session OF the Senate. il is unneces-
saTy TO inquire whether the other parts of the |
aet are constitutional or not, and also unneces. |
sary 70 inquire what the provisions of the act |
are in reference TO the heads of the several ey
ecutiVe departments.
In reference 10 the proyiso OF the tenure e-of-
on,e bill Ia relation to Cabinet officers serving
out the term Of the President by whom they
may have been appointed, Mr.. Boutwell, |
maintained that Mr.. Stanton succeeded to Mr.
Lincoln Office and for the remainder of Mr.
Lincoln's term of office. He is serving out Mr.
Iincoln's term as President. The law saws
that the Secretaries shall hold their ofices re.
spectively Tor and during the term of the Presi.
dent by whom they may have been appointed
MI. l-lncoIn's term commenced on the 4th of
March, 1866. Mr.. Stanton was appointed by
MI. Llncoln; he was in Office in Mr. LincoInis
term when the act regulating the tenure of |
certain civil officers was passed: and by the |
proyiso OF that act he was entitled to hold that
Office until one month after the 4th of March, 4
ls6', unless b. should be sooner removed there 4
from, by and with the advice and consent of |
the Senate The act of March /, 1872, concern.
ing the succession. in csse the office of Presi-
dent and Vice President both became vacant.
recognizes the presidential term of four years
as the constitutional term. !
MIR. b. reviewed the debates in the two
Houses on the bill to sustain his position and |
replied 10 The argument OF the Presidents coun.
sci that the provisions in that bill did not apply
to The Secretary Of War, saying: II he s not in
cluded in the language Of the proviso, then upon
the admission of the counsel he is i'm Iuded i'm
the body OF the bill; that for the purposes of
this investigation and trial, il 10 wAolly mma.
terial whether the proviso appliee to him or not
If the pIoyiso doee NOT apply to the Secretary |
l-X 49,