Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1868-03-12
SPEtCH or HON. WIN. A. WALLACE,
90 clfAnrfrLn, on
THE IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION
n<,lyered In the senate Of rsnns,ivanlA,
February 2s, 1868.

p.,olred bv ths Senate and Bouss ef RsPre'en-
loflsss, etc.
Ia Tha, the thanks Of the people Of this Com.
sn1fwcalth are due and hereby rendered, through
cktIt Immediate representatives. TO the House Of
Httfcscntatyes Of the Congress Of the United
Ez,es for its fidelity to the people and lis prompt
news in preferring articles OF impeachment against
A1irew johnson for his late act Of usnrpation.
al That the thanks of the people Of Pennsyl-
xann are due and are hereby rendered 10 Edwin
~ Stanton, Secretary Of War, for his courage and
111lity IN resisting the attempted invasion OF his
o'5os and violation Of the fundamental law, and
his resolute resistance TO executive encroachment
Ar. White moved TO proceed TO the
considcration of the resolutions, which
was agreed to by party vote
Mr.. Wallace offered the following
eubstitute /: .rnr
}2-.olved, That in the passage, veto and re-
u1ssage Of the tenure Of Office law, the executive
Nud legislative branches of the Government, each
In Itself has the right to judge Of its constitution
1Iify, and there being a conflict Of opinion thereon
a ess the privilege Of either of said departments
when called to execute or obey the same, to bring
Il heiore the Supreme Court Of theUnited States fol
41jtdication.
/<ssolusd, That in the removal Of Edwin M
&<1nfon from the Office Of Secretary Of War and
the appointment of General Lorenzo Thomas in
his Mead for the purpose Of testing the constitu
tonality Of the said tenure Of Office BILL the Presi
dent Of tine United States was obeying his oati
TO preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
o. fhe United States,' and was guilty Cf no crime
for Which he can legally be impeached.
Htsoiped, That II is the duty of the executive
and legislative branches Of the Government, and
ofM good citizens, to enforce, respect and obey
the decsion Of the Supreme Court of the United
Etaies upon the question Of the constitutionality
or DC said tenure Of Office law when it is announced
byth said court
Mn. WALLACE, said:
Mr.. Speaker, the position we oc-
cupy upon the question now agItatlng
the public mind is stated is the amend
ment have just submitted. Our posi-
tion, sir, upon this issue, is that OF
obedience to law, of an appeal to legal
tribunals for its settlement. We are
now, as we have been in the past,
for the maintenance of the law and
the Constitution. We are for q free
system of laws against revolution and
despotism for maintaining eonstitu-
fional obligations against anarchy and
chaos.
In bringing the constitutionality
ofthe tenure Of Office law before the
SQpreme Court for adjudication and
settlement, the President exercised a
right that was vested in him by vir.
tue Of his high office. In making o
prectical case for adjudication he ex-
orcised what was not only his right
bat his sworn duty.
The removal of a Cabinet officer
was an executive power and as such,
one of thehigh prerogatives of the ex-
ocutive branch of the Government.
This right could not be taken from him
and preserve his departmentin in its in
tegrity.
The right Of removal by the Presi.
dent alone has, by universal practice
of the Government, been recognized
from 1889 to 1867. Every President
Of the United States exercised it un.
questioned. As early as 1889 the
question came up in Congress, on q
notion TO strike out of law organic.
ing the State Department a provision
TO make the officer removable at the
Measure of the President. This mo.
ton, after debate, was negatived by
the decisive vote of 20 to "a. During
the debate many of those who aided
In forming the Constitution took
part.
Mr.. Madison himself said
/" The Constitution afiirms that the
oxecutive power is vested in the
President. Are there exceptions to
this propositionl Yes, there are The
Censtitution says that in appointing
<ooffice the Senate shall be associated
with the President, unless in the case
oflnferio officers, when the law shall
ptherwise direct. Have we (that is,
Congress] a right to extend this ex-
ceptionl | believe not. If the Con.
etitution has invested all executive
power in the President, l return TO
nssert that the legislature has no right
to diminish or modify his executive
authority. The question now resolves
itself into this Is the power of dis
placing an executive powerY / con.
oeiye that if any power whatever is in
the Executive it is in the power OF
appointing, overseeingan and controlling
those who execute the laws. If the
Constitution had not qualified the
powell of the President in appointing
20 office by associating the Senate
with him in that business, would il
not be clear that he would have the
right, by virtue Of the executive pow.
ee, TO make such appointment
Should we be authorized, in defiance
Of that clause in the Constitution
che executive power shall be vested in
the President-to unite the Senate with
tho appointment to office conceive
not If it is admitted that we should
not be authorized to do this, ! think
~ may be disputed whether we have
aright to associate them in removing
persons from office, the one power be
ing as much of an executive nature as
the other and the first is authorized
hy being excepted out of the general
rule established by the Constitution
20 these words The executive pow.
en- shall be vested in the President"
fisher Ames said-"It is leading
principle in every free government
10 q prominent feature in this, that
the legislative and executive powers
should be kept distinct yet the at
tempt TO blend the executive and leg.
is|ntivc departments in exercising the
power ofremoval, is such a maxim as
ought not to be carried into practice
On arguments grounded on implica
ticn.p
AUOth hpr raasOp aoourr In f,,a a cra;r q,