The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-04-10

laws are faithfully executed, still In
cases where portion ofhis pIerogatiVes
are sought to be invaded and no one
else can raise questions, he must do IL.
Suppose n law was passed depriving
him of his power as Commahder-in-
Chief, wouId it not be his duty to OPP
nose Il en- as to bring about a decision
by the Courtsf A power derived Dy I'M
plication is as unassallapie as one III
rectly granted by the Constitution:
The counsel do not conceive it to be
essential to their case to maintain this
position, but deem it plainly proved.
Mr.. Curtis then enumerated some OF
the considerations which had influenced
the President, and referred to Story's
commentary on the Constitution and
other authorities, to show that the rule
of construction and practice is the best
exponent of law; from 1889 to 1857
every President and every Congress has
participated in and acted under the
construction of the former year, namely,
that the President has the sole power OF
removal.
The Senate took recess for 20 min
utes.
On re-assembling at $50, Mr.. Morrill,
moved to adjourn. Negatived--2o to =.
Mr.. Curtis then resumed his argument
addicted numerous authorities and de-
cisions to prove that the effect OF con-
temporaneous legislative construction
is to fix and determine Interpretation.
He referred to theI different opinions
advanced during debate on tins sub
ject in 1873, and claimed that the con-
struction of that power OF removal was
subject to legislative enactment. 1t had
at least never been established so clearly
that to act on the opposite view was pre-,
sumptively a crime. He then advanced
the argument that to apply the tenure
of office law to Mr.. Stanton would be
to violate the agreement made by the
Senate in confirming his appointment
to hold the office during the pleasure
of the President. Recapitulating his
arguments to prove that the President
could not be impeached for an act des-
| ignated merely to procure judicial
decision upon a disputed point, lie
quoted from Mr.. Buffers speech to
show that the Managers admitted this
view and had said the removal IN Itself
was perhaps not an impeachable ottense
if made with foregoing motive and not
accompanied with defiant message to
tthe Senate. Mr.. Curtis said 1t was
matter of taste as to how they should
be notified. The Managers claimed
that the reason for removing Mr.. Stan
ton assigned by the President, was an
afterthought, and he was estoeped from
now alleging it by certain things he
had done and said previously. lie
argued that the rule of esteppel
was of very limited application
and could not be used to convict a per-
son of crime, nor brought forward in
this case. To have informed the Senate
of his reason would have been construed
into a threat, and now the Managers
claim he was too deferential. There was
no inconsistency in the Presidents ac-
ton in regard to this law, and every day
| in courts positions were maintained IN
n similar way An individual may set
ND plea in regard to law first, that
| il is unconstItutional; second, that 1t
does not apply to himself, and third,
that if it is u law he can maintain his
case under it. So long as the
tenure of office law affected unimpor
tant matters, the President avoided a
conflict with it, but when Il proper &C.
casion arose he asserted his own views
without being prejudiced by former ac-
! ton. in regard to lesser and unim-
portant matters, the charge made in the
| form of q commission does not state or
tend to determine where the power Of
removal is lodged, but merely acknowl-
edges it as existing somewhere by vir
tue of law.
At this point Mr.. Curtis begged per-
mission to suspend his remarks until
tomorrow, as lie was greatly fatigued.
The court accordingly adjourned at 3:l5,
and the Senate went into Executive
session and soon after adjourned.