The Portland daily press., 1868-06-01
Terms $500 per onmuns, in adraace.

t He inyokes the judgment OF the Senate OF
the suspension of Mr.. Stanton, and after tina
Judgement has been pronounced against him
and under it the officer had returned 10 ms du
, ties in obedience to the act under wnlch ne ma
been suspended, he defies its authority Dy III
removal, appoints General Thomas Secretar
of War al interim, holds him out to 'he coun
try as the rightful Secretary of War, treat
him as constituent member of his cabinet
ignores Mr.. Stanton altogether, and thus sub
jects the conduct of the Office of the Depart
ment of War to the dangers, embarrassment
and peris which may come if these conflict
ing pretensions are made good by his acquital
If to these be added the spirit OF defiance
manifest in his message to the Senate OF Feb
ruary 22d last and his determination, and deter
mination at any and all hazards to the pup
llc interests, to cause personally 0onoXiou
public offic I "to surrender his office, am per
suaded that the peril To our republican struct
ure of government will have become lmmlneu
when such conduct in the President shal
come to be regarded and tolerated as slight
and trliling, and shall not ON the contrary, be
held u high misdemeanor in office. Mr.
Madison, in commenting upon this subject
says, Il contend that the aodaton removal OF
meritorlous officers would subject him (Lhe
Pres!dent) to impeachment and removal from
his own high Office"
A different question is presented on the Sc
cond and third articles. On the 21st Februa-
ry, assuming to have removed Mr.. Stanton
the President, in writing, authorized General
Thomas to act as Secretary of War. and ap-
pointed him Secretary of War dd interim, there
| being no vacancy i'll that office, or pretence OF
vacancy, except the letter to Mr.. Stanton Of
the same date, the Senate then being in ses-
sion and not being advised upon the subject.
The President, in his answer, insists that at
the date of the letter and its delivery to Gen
| eral Thomas there was vacancy in the office
| OF Secretary of War caused by removal; that,
Notwithstanding the Senate was in session, it
was lawful and in accordaee with Ions s-estab-
lished usage 10 empower said Thomas to act as
Secretary OF War dd interim; and that if the
tenure-of-Offce act be valid, in doing so he vio-
| lated none of its provisions.
Whether there was or not a vacancy in that
| office will depend upon the effect given to the
! letter of removal addressed to Mr. Stanton,
| which was not acquesced in, and under which
| no removal de fdctO was effected; and whether
| the attempted removal, or order of removal,
was justified by any usage arising under any
| provision of law. 1t is not pretended that any
| act of Congress expressly conters this power
while the Senate is in session, much less that
the power is drawn from any express provision
of the Constitution. No parallel in the histo-
| ry of the government is shown is believed
| to exist. The only case at all approaching it
is that of Timothy Pickering where the remo-
val and the nomination to the Senate of his
| successor were simultaneous, and were essen
| TALLY one and the same act, which was in and of
itself the mode adopted by the President of
1
| ate to the removal. But in this case there was
an attempted removal without reference to the
Senate and independent of it, and the appoint
ment of Secretary dd. interim, and no nomi-
| nation to the Senate of successor. Neither
| by the implication of the Constitution, laws,
nor usage was the removal of Mr.. Stanton and
| the designation of General Thomas as Secre-
tary of War ad interim authorized.
| But it is insisted that the removal of Mr..
| Stanton having created vacancy the Presi-
| dent was authorized to fill it temporarily by
the designation of General Thomas, under the
| act of 1875, and that that act was not repealed
| by the act of 1863 This latter act repeals all
| acts and parts of acts inconsistent with its
provisions; and it is said that its provisions
| are not inconsistent in some one or more par
| tlculars with the forme act upon the same
subject, which to that extent at least is not re
pealed. This construction is quite too narrow.
| The question is not whether the repeating act
| in any particular negatives the former act, but
whether in its object and scope it was a sub
| stantial revision of the law upon the particu-
| lar subject. If so, then, by well-established
rules OF legal Interpretation, it does operate
| to repeal the former laws upon that subject.
| Now it is apparent from an examination of
those statutes that the act Of 1868 was such a
statute of revision. The act of 1892, upon the
| same subject, made provision for the case of
vacancy by death, and certain Temporary disa-
ments. That of 1875 provided that sin case OF
vacancy" &c, and both alike in the cases con-
| templated, provided that the President might
authorize any person or persons, at his dis
cretion, to perform the duties, &c. The act of
| 1868 provides that in case of resignation,
death, absence from the seat of government,
| or sickness in the heads of any of the existing
| departments, the President may authorize any
head of any other department" &C., to perform
| the duties, &c.
The act Of 1868 is a revision of the law ON
the subject, as it embraces the objects of both
prior statutes; provides for vacancy by resig-
nation, not provided for specifically, and
changes the rule of both prior statutes as
to the persons to be authorized to perform the
| duties temporarily, and makes provision for
the other departments, and adapts the exist
ing laws to the present changed state of affairs.
Can it be doubted that the act OF 1868 was in
tended to be a revision of the whole law
| upon the subject; that it did provide and was
| intended to provide one uniform rule for all
the departments and not in case of vacancy
| by death, resignation, &c, authorize the
appointment OF hoadi of departments, &C.,
and in case of vacancy by removal to author
| -lze amy person or personsY That the act oi
1868 was intended to have this effect is clear
from the statement of the chairman OF the
Committee on the Judiciary who reported the
act, Hon. Mr.. Trumbul, that it was his under
standing that it did repeal all former acts up
on that subject.
But this precise question of the removal o.
of Stanton and appointment of Gen, Thomas
was fully adjudicated by the Senate, and con
cluded by its action on the 21st February last
This is its record:
Whereas the Senate have received and considered
the communication OF the President stating that he
| had removed Edwin Nj. Stanton, Secretary OF War
and had designated Lorenzo Thomas to act Secre-
| tary of War 0d interim: Therefore
RESOLVED by the Senate Of the United States
| That under the Constitution and iatcs Of the Uni.
ted States the President has no power to remove thu
Secretary ofWar and designate any other officer /,
perform the duties of that office dd interim.
Was that adjudication of an act done ant
submitted to the Senate for its consideration
erroneous? The resolution finally passed the
Senate without division
To those who would weaken the force of thi:
record, or find excuse for the President in the
unimportance of the transaction, it may be re
piled that if the Senate would retain its self
respect, or command the respect of others, i
must stand by its DEGREES until reversed for er
ror, and not for the reason that the Presiden
def es them, or refuses to yield obedience t,
them. The President tells the Senate, in hi
communication upon the subject, that as early
as August last he had determined to cause
Mr.. Stanton to surrender the office of Secre
tary for the Department of War;" That issu,
is now for the third time distinctly before tn,
Senate, twice by the action of the President
and now by the action of the representative
of the people. A surrender of the record o
the Senate is a surrender of public Office
to the predetermined purpose and per
sonal will of the President. 1t is needless t
, say such result would be the deposition of
, high public officer without cause, a triumph
ant defiance of the law of the land and of tn
supreme legislative authority of the country
Whoever contemplates such result witt
, Indifference may prepare for the advent of ex
ecutive usurpation totally subversve of ou
system of government
, 1t only remains to consider the proposition
of the counsel for the President that he shoul,
not be held guilty on an assumed innocent mis-
take in interpreting the law. In Judging Q
the intent with which the President acted, th
public record of that officer, his acts, speeehe
, and policy, and the current events of histor
connected Herewith, may properly be consider
, | ed. The quality of the particular act may be rt
| hected from the body of official reputation an
public conduct, good or bad.
, In determining the character of the act
1 | complained of, touching the intent of the Pres
f | ldent, we may consider whether they relate t
. | his antecedent official conduct, whether the
. were purely public and official or private an
PERSONAL whether they arose out of some rea
, | or supposed pressing public exigency, @
e whether, as IN the case of Mr.. Stanton, from tn
! | real or assumed misconduct of public off
! | eer or from settled determination to get ri
|. of one who had become disagreeabe TO hin
, | at all hazards, and because it was his pleasur
, no longer to tolerate him in his office. In thi
i light consider some of the facts connects
| with the removal of Mr.. Stanton and the dc
q signation OF General Thomas as Secretary
: War ad interim. In his note of the 9TH Au
gust last, requesting the resignation of Nj
Stanton, the President says he is constraine
| to do so from "public considerations of q hig
| character" The nature of these consideration
is lett to conjecture.
!. | In his message OF December II, 1867, assign
q | ing the reason for the suspension of Mr.. Star
! ton, he says he deemed the reply to his not
!, above referred to as defiance and expressio
3 of a loss OF confidence in his superior, an