The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1868-06-05
NUMBER "a.

the same subject % both the former ones,
and changes tho provisions Of each. -
II provides for all tho classes OF cases en-.
bn.ccd in both those acts, thongh not for
every insiGnee in each class, and II rcduires
q totally di6sranf and resrefed method of sup.
piy. Il 10 impossible to imagine any reason
for rcauiring vacancy caused by death or
resignation, both Of which must be inde-
pcndent ofthe Presidents will. and fortui.
ious ns to him, to be supplied In o particular
and limited manner, while vacancy caused
by removal at tho will Of the President, or
eIpirntion Of ftcrm, neither Of which could
be filled at The mere pleasure of!he Presl.
ident, without any guard or Limitation wiint.
ever. Il must be epresumed, therefore, that
the intention was to substitute moro care
fully guarded and limited system In the place
Of the old one, and MOTTO allow vacancies
made by the law or the will Of the President
to he so filed. This Is made the moro prob.
able when We consider that even This Is go
ing to the utmost verge oflegislati'e power
in such cases.
The law upon the subject Of repcals, by
Implication, Is we'll summed up by the su.
prcme court of Massachusetts,, In Bartlett,
vs. King, (l2 Mass. 5G3,) as follows:
"a subsequent statue revising tho whole subject
matter Of former one, and evidently intsnded ~
substitute for IL, although IL contains no express
words TO that effect must. on the principles OF
law, - we'll ~ In reason and common sense' oPer-
to repeal the former"
And In Leighton rs. Walker 70 N. II,
6l.) Il Is decided that
pears tho former statutes are 10 be considered -
no longer In force, though not expressly repeal.
ed"
] am Of the opinion, therefore, that tho
respondent is guilty as charged in the 6rst
three articles. There Is another view OF
this removal and appointment not necessary,
as l construe the law, TO decision, but
which is Of too much importance to be pas-
sed 10 silence. II is this, whether, II tho
case stood upon the nets OF 1859 and l795
one Of which authorizes removal at pleas.
urc, and the other an appointment ad inter
i'm, the respondent can Justify his conduct
upon the evidence before us. Tho induc-
ing and controlling motive OF these acts OF
The respondent was displeasure because the
Secretary Of War was not 80 subservient TO
him in his avowed and determined opposi. .
ton to the laws OF the land respecting tho
southern Stntes as some other heads OF De-
partmen,s; and the undisputcd design Of tho
respondent, In his efforts to displaec MIR.
Stnnton, was to replace him 10y some ono
more plant to his wishes and less earnest In
his administration OF the laws. This was
the '.larinony" desired IN the "Cabinct."
These wcro tho "public considerations ofa
high character" which made Mr.. StnntOn's
resignation desirable to the respondent, and
whicI, have led him TO commit the acts up.
penring in tho evidence.
The cnsc, then, is tho removal OF faith
fiil officer. neither accused nor suspected OF
any other wrong than adherence TO the du.
~ the law imposed upon him, bccaAsc OF
that faithiiilness and adherence to duty, by
President 0ftlie United States who was
determined thereby to counternct and de-
feat the law, because he believed or pro.
fcssed to believe In different "policy" Of
his own! In my opinion no higher crime,
no gruvcr violation Of constitutional duty,
no act moro dangerous to law or to the lib
critics OF the mutton can bc found within tho
reach OF the Executive. Surely the opin-
ion Of Mr.. Madison, so much referred toby
tho counsel, cannot be questioned on this
point. Ho says:
1The danger, then, consists merely In this Tho
President can displsce from once . man whose
merits require that he should DO continued In 10
what will be the motive which the President can
have for such abuse OF his power and the authority
Ss sg Uu:s sS s
Of mai.dmlnstra.ion," 40. Innai' Of co"s's",
T,p5i7.
It's, perhaps, proper in this connection
that should say expressly, what Is implied
in what have stated, that ] entirely disa.
gree with tho doctrine advanced in the ar
g,imcnt. that we may find the respondent
guilty although the statute he has violated
affecting his rights il itself nulllly, and in
violating il he has only done ahat the Con-
stiuIti0Ii. the supreme law, permitted. II
such he the law the Constitution. instead Of
being II guard, guide, and warning to Off
GERS, Is snare.
The fourth article is denied by the an.
swer. and do not think thnt II is proved.
The fi(ih article charges an unlawful con-
spirncy to prevent the execution nj the net
ofAiarch 2, 1867, and nm unlawful attempt
TO prevent Mr.. Stanton from holding the Of
fee. The conspiracy is denied, but the act
IL admitted, with claim oi i,s legality
This article Is, I think, embodied within tho
sa,ne principles as tie 6rst, and ] am OF
opinion, upon the grounds already stated,
that the respondent s guilty (: for, although
the mere attempt to do on unlawful oct ls
not within tho penal section Of that act,
think that an attempt to commit an unlaw-
fuI net Of such grave character as this, 10 in
law. a high mis,iemeanor.
The Supreme Court Of the United States
(lIuited States Is. Quincy, 6 Pet, 1861 has
correctly defined criminal attempt rs fol.
lows:
.sro ,ttempt 10 do an act does not either IN law
or in common parlance. imply the compilation Of
the act or any dennate progress toward IT, Any
effort or ondeavor to effect Will satisfy the terms
Of the law"
The sixth and seventh articles allegs . oon-
snth y unlaufully, the War Department, prop
erty' Sc. This Is denied by the answer. Il
seems to bc properly conceded by the defense,
ey,n n the respondent had lAwfal right 70 10
move Mr.. Stanton and to appoint Gen. Thomas
thst n that right was In honest dispute ho
could not Justify resorting to force Instead OF
the law to disposes an oibcer from an otiioe
which no had legally held. and which he stu
claimed In good faith to bold legally,
ON, Of fact. Did the respondent, upon tho
facts proved. and what wc may lawfully notice
of nublic history In connection with those
facts, combine with Thomas TO get possession
of The War Office at the expense OF rcs0rting to
violence. or physical power, II that should DO
necifui to reach the resultf Al the cxpense OF
repetition. TO Acertain extent, will state the
case upon this question. II Is matter OF his
tory ,ha, prior to the July session Of Congress
in 1857, the opposition Of the respondent TO the
laws relating 10 the rebel States Was % great
That every obstacle that legal ingenuity could
suggest vas, under his sanction. thrown u ,hs
wsy Of their operating In the spirit intended
BY Congress, and that shr elect a;., VS. .S0 NJ.
stsn,pn through whose Department thessh.s
~,re ,o Ia carrisi into execst.n or 70 be 90.
s,rae,e.i, Vas earnestly In favor Of DC Carrying n
them out according TO the manifest !in OF Con
sye~ ~ and tbs fAir meaning Of the laws them
selves. Nsvesthsloss. oosarocuts ta 'hs
tions and orders we're iaued which lcd 70 w
ss sss.Ion of Juiy. 1867, sad tho s.planstory ~
oS lat se.sion. The personal relation: Of tns
.s.nosdent and Mr.. Stanton had been tner