The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-10
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, April 9.
SENATE.

REPRESENTATIVES entered ia larger num-
bers than on recent occasions.
The Chief Justice inquired whether
the Managers had any further evidence
TO Introduce, and Mr.. Butler responded
in the affirmative.
The reading of the journal was dis
pensed with.
gers, then called w. II. Wood, who was
sworn.
Mr.. Butler stated that the design was
to prove by this witness the Presidents
hostility to Congress.
The witness was from Alabama. He
testified that he served in the Union
army, and in Dec ember, 1866, called on
the President, seeking Government en-
ployment. The President told him he
could do nothing for him, as his intlu-
ence was on the side of Congress, while
those he appointed must be with him.
Foster Blodgett testiied-He was
Amounted Postmaster at Augusta,
Georgia, in 1865; was suspended IN 1865
by the President, and did not know as
the Senate had been notified of this ac-
ton.
The letter of General Thomas &C
ceptinE the appointment as Secretary OF
War, ad interim, was then put In evil
dence, and Mr.. Butler gave notice that
the Managers would file the certificates
of the proper officers to show that no
reasons for the suspension OF Blodgett
had ever been sent to the Senate.
Mr.. Butler then announced that the
case on behalf of the House of Repre-
sent atives was closed.
Mr.. Curtis then rose and commenced
the opening argument for the defence:
Abiding TO the character of the trial
and the oath taken by Senators in the
capacity of judges, Mr.. Curtis said the
only appeal he should make would be
to the conscience and reason of every
Judge, basing his argument solely on
questions of law and fact. He lntrma-
ted that he would subsequently combat
the position taken by the Managers
that this body was not essentially and
in fact o Court, but at present would
consider the articles separately in their
order and substance. The gravamen OF
the charges of the first article WAS that
of the removal of Mr.. Stanton, and that
it was intended to be in violation OF the
tenure-of-office act and OF the Constltu-
ton. He argued to show that
the case of Mr.. Stanton did
not come within that scope, and the
provisions of the tenure of office act
maintaining the description OF his
Office, and its tenure differed materially
in the section and prOvisO. Mr.. Stan
ton was appointed by Mr.. Lincoln in
1862, to hold TIE office during the term
for which he was elected; not to hold
it during a subsequent term for which
he might be elected. 1t could not be
said that Mr.. johnson WAS serving out
the term of Mr.. Lincoln. The term fol
which President is elected is not all
solutely four years, but is limited by
life and ability. His conditional term
expiring, the Vice President succeeds
to new term, which consists
of the remainder of the term for which
the Vice President was elected; as well
it might be said that one sovereign
served out the term of another whom he
succeeded. There was purpose III the
difference ofthe phrase0logy between the
section and its prOvisO. The Constitu-
ton authorizes the President to call
upon the members of his Cabinet for adj
vice respecting matters concerning his
own duties, as well as respecting mat
tiers connected with their practice since
the foundation of the Government.
They were the voice and the hands of
the President; in them he was to repose
confidence and for them he was TO be re-
sponsible. They were placed by the
tenure of Office law in the same posi-
L.. D,n.,,Ianf hxr hnpn fhav
were appointed; they were to serve out
his term of service, but as to Others
holding over the case was different.
Mr. Curtis proceeded to show that
the feeling and intention of both
houses of Congress was in the framing
and passage of This bill, maintaining
that they were in accord with the views
he Just expressed. He quoted from a
speech explaining the report of the
committee of Conference made by Mr.
Schenck; also from the speeches of
Messrs. Sherman, Williams and others
in the Senate, in which they denied that
either the purpose OF effect of the bill
was TO keep Stanton in efhce; he read
these, not as expressions of individual
opinion, but as an explanation of the
report of the committee of Conference.
Returning to the consideration of the
articles, he said the 9th section forbids
any removal contrary to the provisions
of the act, but as Mr.. Stanton did not
Weld, it was no removal, and if it had
been, he would not have violated the
act, since he had just shown that Mr..
Stanton did not come within its
provisions. The House of Representa-
tives charged the President with in
territorial violation of this section,
which unquestionably admits of differ
emit constructions, but Sails to prove
that he concurred in their inter-
probation and then wilfully acted
in contravention of it. The first duty of
the President is to construe an act and
decide what is its true meaning. This
duty he performed, as the Constitution
provided, by consultation with his con
stitutional advisers and they all put the
same construction on the act in ques-
ton as had been assigned to it by its
trainers. The case of Mr.. Stanton
is of actually holding office. Under
the law of 1859, without express
~ giving the President the power to
remove him, implies it by directing
what shall be done by the President
alter removal. Nothing in the Con-
stitutisn forbids the exercise of this
power by the President, independently of
the Senate. The decision of Congress
in 1889, affirmed by implication, that
such power was granted to the Presi-
dent by the Constitution, and neither
subsequent legislation nor amendments
to the Constitution denied it. The
practice of the Government also was in
conformity to, this view. On the ont
break of the civil war the War Depart
ment was in disloyal hands. President
Buchanan told Floyd he must give it
up and Floyd had too much good sense
and something else to refuse. Without
this immediate action there is no tell
ing what disastrous consequences might
have ensued.
Having argued the right of removal,
Mr.. Curtis proceeded TO argue its pro-
priety and necessity in this case.
-e' He recited the circumstances attend
ing the first correspondence with Mr..
Stanton and his suspension, and went
on to claim there might be instances in
which the highest patriotism and duty
required citizen to raise the question
- n