The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-12-16
Butler on the Tenure .Or.Oalce Law.

buffers proposition TO repeal the Tenure
ofOfice law is the first step yet taken in Con-
gress having particular relation to Grant.
This is the third proposition for the repeal Of
the same act that Congress has heard since
the beginning of its present session. The first
came from MIR. Cary, of Ohio, and the second
was made by the President in his message,
and these two Congress scarcely heard the
one, while 1t derisively laughed at the other.
But the same proposition, coming from Butler,
seems naturally to claim a significance that
would not be accorded to it as coming from
almost any other man in the country. Buffers
relations to the House are peculiar, and so are
his relations to the incoming President. The
Representative from Massachusetts is man
who must be heard, as the House knows. He
cannot be snubbed as any chance man in the
crowd of Representatives may be, nor can he
be laughed down, as has been sufficiently
proved by the "bottle" experiment in that
way. Moreover, his political sagacity has
come to be recognized in a very palpable de-
gree by the fact that his simply turning his
attention to a subject gives it importance.
People recognize that he has been among the
first to discuss many things that subsequently
grew to great proportions in our national agi-
tations, and thence infer, perhaps rather too
readily, that whatever he touches is likely to
do the same. He has grown to be leader of
thought in the House, however others may
nomnally lead its action. Yet, with all this,
the House is not sure of his fealty to party
not sure of his motives-and SO hesitates what
to do with his proposition.
The merits OF the case are clear. This law
was made to tie the hands of a President not
in sympathy with Congress. 1t was made to
cripple the Presidential Office, because in the
exercise of the powers given him by the Con-
stitution the President could be tolerably in
dependent of the dictation of the radical ma
jority. This tyrannical majority, jealous of
every power that could oppose it, stopped at
nothing in the effort to make itself supreme in
the government, and framed this law as the
most effective blow it could deal at what was
always regarded as the proper constitutional
authority of the Executive. Having made
this law to control a President hostile to
it, people would naturally suppose that Con-
gress, now that a President is elected of
its own views, would be ready to wipe out
that law and return to the true basis
of the Constitution. But there are some rea-
SONS why it is not ready to do this. 1t has
enjoyed the power of holding the Executive
hand and foot for months, and it is not will
ing to lay that power aside. This was one of
the dangers that the trainers of the Constitu-
tion endeavored sedulously to guard against
in adjusting the nice balance of our system;
but Congress cares less for the danger of the
Government as whole than for its own power
in that Government. This is piece of short
sightedness that is universal in the history of
similar bodies. Another reason is that there
is large section of the Republican party
which remembers that Grant was elected with
out any pledges, and that he has never yet
given any evidence of that kind of radical
temper that would satisfy Massachusetts,.
They contemplate the possibility that they
may by y-and-by be as eager to hold Grant as
ever they were to hold Johnson, and rightly
judge that this law once gone they cannot re-
enact it.
AS must inevitably be the case with Grip
pling law, this statute operates in two ways.
Made to prevent the Executive doing wrong,
it equally prevents him doing right, and it is
obvious how necessary it is that it should be
repealed if Grant is to do what is universally
expected of hin. He is expected to make
wholesale slaughter of the corrupt officials
that are in place under this very law; but he
cannot remove single rascal who has credit
with political caucuses, cliques, and rings,
and cannot appoint man who does not come
commended to all the Senators on similar au-
thority. Were Butler, therefore, interested
in seeing the failure of Grants administration
he might reasonably stand still and look on at
the operation of this mischieveus Law, and in
the absence of any exposition of his motives
he must therefore receive credit for mag
nanimouss disposition to let Grant start fair,
and for a patriotic wish to get back to the
Constitution. But with whatever purpose he
sure of the session, and one the vote upon
which will be significant of the temper and
attitude of Congress toward Grant, determi-
nation not to repeal the law would be a vote
Of want of confidence in the new President.