The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-10

out Of the broken fragments OF this article any
thing that will amount to a high misdemeanor.
President did violate and intend to violate the
stltuton Of the United States BY giving this order.
OF removal was made during the session Of the Sen
ave, and that for that reason the order was q
Now, II can make my own ideas OF 1t plain think
nothing LEFT OF that article In the first place,
tary OF War holding by the terms of his Commission
a9ring the pleasure Of the President and holding
ander me act OF l7s9 which created that department.
ana whch, although 1t does not directly confer on
the President the power of removing the Secretary
does clearly imply that he has that power by making
PROVISION ior what shall happen in case he exer-
cses 1t. That is the which Ia under considera.
aw Of Hso question i Is thswheher under the
by that law-created after great debate
the President could have removed such a
Why notH Certainly there is nothing In the con.
stituton Of the United States to prohibit it, The
constitution has made two distinct provisions for
filling offices. One Is by nomination TO the Senate
q confirmation by that body and commission by the
President on that confirmation; the other Is the
commission OF an officer when vacancy happens
during recess OF the Senate. But the question
shall be filled for that the Constitution has provided
for, but question how vacancies may be created,
which Is totally different question Whatever
arrived at after the great debate in 1859 concerning
the tenure of office or concerning the power OF the
the fact that q conclusion was arrived at and
that that conclusion was that the constitution
this power Of removal Independently OF the senate.
THIS may be a decision which ought to be reversed.
ing at present But that it was made, that the egs.
lation Of Congress in 1889 and on down to 1867
proceeded on the assumption expressed or implied,
That that decision had been made, nobody who
derstands the history Of the country will deny.
Consider you please, what the decision was
that the constitution had lodged this power in the
President that he was to exercise It, that the Senate
had not and could ;% not have any control whatever
whether the Senate is in session not. II the
Senate Is not in session and the President
has this power vacancy is created, and the const
tuition has made provision for filing that vacancy by
commissioning until the end Of the next session Of
the Senate the Senate Is In session the cOnstitu-
ton has made provision for filling the vacancy thus
created by nomination, and the laws OF the country
made provision for filling It ad interim; SO that i
this be case within the scope Of the decision made
by Congress in 1889, and within the scope OF the egs
laton which followed on that decision, 1t Is case
when either by force Of the constitution the President
had the power OF removal without consulting the
Senate or the legislation Of Congress had
the constitution nor the legislation OF Congress
had made 1t incumbent him to consult the Senate
on the subject. submit therefore, that If you look
at this has been presented, the decision
made In 1850 on the legislation OF Congress following
under which Mr Stanton held, you must come to the
conclusion without any further reference to the sub
Jet that the Senate had nothing whatever to 40
Senate was In session or not; that his removal was
made either under the constitutional power Of the
II that be considered reversed, under the
grant made by the Legislature to the
Guided within the Tenure OF ONCE act This, how
ever does not rest simply on this application OF the
been-and shall bring it before you--a practice on
the part Of the government Of going back to very
qay ae1 &c 10 from when
the case called for them without regard to the fact
whether the Senate was In session or not The in
stances, OF course would not be numerous where,
II the Senate was in session, he would not
send nomination to- the Senate, SAYING,
But there were occasions, not OF, frequent
occurrence, where the President had not time to Sc
lect person whom he wOald nominate, where he
would not trust the officer then In possession OF the
office to continue 1t, and where It was necessary by
Independent ' Of the nomination Of his successor
Let me bring before your attention a case which
Senate we were on the eve Of civil war Tie de-
partment was In the hands OF man who was dis
loyal and unialthia to his trust His G1eI CLERK
the place, was in the same category as his master
| Under these circumstances the President OF the
possesson Of the ocep Mr. Floyd had oe
| much good sense, or good manners or good
resign, and Instantly the President put into the war
ONCE General Holt, the Postmaster General without
the delay Of an hour, when the delay OF twentyfo
hours might be OF vast practical consequences There
several OF this class Of cases arising in all the de-
partmens and followed by this action, and we shall
bring before you evidence showing what these
were 80 that will appear that as long as officers
Independent OF the advice which he might receive
from the Senate with reference to their removal,
ss ee an io u e
not. l have now given the considerations appli-
cable to the Tenure OF ONCE act; and to
those allegations that the President violated
knowingly the constitution OF the United States
In the order for the removal OF Mr.. Stanton from Of
the President deem that not essential In order to
his vindicatiOn from this charge to further into the
view Of the matter and it is due to the President that
1t should be brought into court and that now pro-
requires the President Of the United States to take
that the laws be faithfully executed IL also
quires OF him before he Is qualified for his office to
swear that he will faithfully execute the laws, and
that to the best Of his ability he Will preserve, protect
and defend the constitution OF the United states.
suppose every man Will agree that as long as the Pres
dent In good faith Is endeavorng to take care that
the laws be faithfully executed, and is in good faith
The Of ths Gned sas
although he may be mistaken he has not committed
high crimes aud msdemeanOrs In the execution OF
those duties. The President found various reasons
which It Is not my province at this time to state but
impossible for him to allow Mr. Stanton to continue
to hold the Office OF Secretary OF War while he was
responsible for his conduct in the manner in which
he IL required by the constitution and laws to be
responsible. This was intimated to Mr. stanton,
and d did not produce me nor effect which in
an intimatlon usually produces. Thereupoa
the President first suspended Mr.. stanton,
ceedngs took place here which will be adverted TO
more particularly presently They resulted In the
Office Then It was necessary for the President Of
the United States to consider, first, whether this
Tenure OF ONCE act applied to the case OF Mr.. Stan
ton, and second, whether the law itself was law OF
the land or was imperative, because conflicting
with the constitution. Now, I am aware that It Is
insisted that IL Is the civil and moral duty OF all
to obey those laws that have passed through all the
forms OF legislation until they shall have been de-
clared by the judicial authority not to be binding
but IL evident that that too broad statement Of
the civil and moral duty incumbent either upon pr
vate citizens upon public officers because II this
be the measure OF the duty there never could be q
decision, there could never be decree that the law
is unconstitutiona inasmuch as It is only by disre-
garding the law that any question can be
raised upon II. I submit to Senators that
not only IN there no such rule OF civil or
moral duty, but that II may be and has been high
and patriotic duty In q citizen TO raise question
whether law Is within the constitution OF his coun-
try. Will any man question the patriotism or pro-
prip M Inun Ham hon p