The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-07
GENERAL BUTLERS SPEECH
TContinued.l

". RsHOuhUDst 0Asfmhu-
GENERAL BUTLERN SPEECH.
[Continued.]
Let US now apply this state of the law toll
he appoin.men, Of Major General Thomas
Secretary of war dd interim by executive
order, Mr. Stanton had neither died nor re-
pigned. WIS not sick nor absent II be had
been, under the ACT of Ma ch g., 1868, which |
rtpea ID Ill inconsistent acts. the President
vas authorized only to appoint the heed OF
snohtr executive department 20 fill bis place |
ad inte,im Such WAS not Gen Thomas
he VAS simply an officer of the army, the
head Of bureau or department OF the War
De par,ment, and not eligible under the law
to be appointed; so that his appointmsntwa
m H. egul ana cord al.
PREcEDEsrs. "a
There have been but two CASES Of dd interim
appointments which illustrate and confirm
Ibls position the one was the appointment
81 Lieutenant General Scott. Secretary Of
War I'D merlin, and the other the appoints
ment of Gen. Grant ad interim, upon the
OF Mr. Stanton, in August last.
The appointment Of General Grant to take
the place Of Mr.. Stanton during his suspen-
sion would have BEEN illegal under tho acts
/ have cited, he i,eing IN officer OF the army
and not the head of department, if it had
not been authorized BY the second section
Of the tenure of-civil-offce act, which pro-
viaes that in case of suspension, and noother,
the President may designate "some Suitable
person TO perform temporarily the duties Of
such Office until the next meeting Of the Sem
aae.n Nov, General Grant was such ssita
bic person." and Was properly enough sp.
pointed under that provision.
This Answers one ground of the defense
which is taken by the President that he did
not suspend Mr.. Stanton under the tenure-ot
Office act, but by his general power of sus-
pension and removal Of an officer. II the
President did not suspend Stanton under the
tenure of-ofice act, because he deemed it I'M
constitutional and void, then there was no law
authorizing him to appoint General Grant,
and that appointment was unauthorized by
law and violation of his oath cf Office.
But the Tsnure-of-ofice Bill BY its express
terms, forbids any employment, authorize
ton, or appointment Of any person in civil
Office where the appointment is by and with
the advice and consent Of the Senate, while
the Senate is in session.
If this act is constitutional, i. e., if it is not
SO far in conflict with the paramount law Of
the land as TO be imperative and void, then
the removal of Mr.. Stanton and the appoint.
ment of General Thomas are both in direct
violation of 1t. and are declared by it to be
high misdemeanors.
The intent with which the President has
done this is not doubtful, nor are We obliged
to rely upon the principle OF law that man
must be held to intend he legal consequences
of all his acts.
The President admits that he intended to
set aside the Tenure of-otfice act, and thus
conlrAvene the Constitution, If that law was
unconstitutional.
Having shown that the President wilfully
violated An act oil Congr IS, without justifca-
ton. both in the removal Of Stanton and the
appointment of Thoma,, for the purpose of
obtaining wrongfnlly the possession OF the
War Office by force, il need be, and certainly
by threats and intimid atoms, for the purpose
of controlling rs Apr ipriations through it's
dd fntsrim chief, who shall say that Andrew
johnson is not guilty of the high crime and
misdemesnors chargol against him in the
hrsteght articles?
THE PRESIDENTS SINCERITY PLEA.
The respodent makes answer 70 this view
that the President, believing this civil tenure
law TO be unconstitutional, had riuht 70 90
t4tS a. ioF tuS pNEHtsc Vi UElukiuk tue IuAi-
ter before the Supreme Court for its adjudi.
cation.
We are obliged, In iimiae, to ask the atten.
tion of the Senate 10 this consideration, that
they may take it with them as our case goes
forward.
We claim that the question Of the consiitu.
tional,ty of any Law OF Congress is. upon this
trial. q totally irrelevant one, because all the
power or right in the President to judge upon
any supposed conflict of an act of Congress
with the paramount Law of the Constitution
10 exhausted. when he has examined . bill
sent him, ard returned IL with his objections
II then passed over his veto, it becomes Is
valid as il. in fact, signed by him.
The Constitution has provided three meth
DDS, all equally potent. BY which bill.
brought into either House, moy become q
law:
LIST. BY passage BY vote of both Houses, in
due form. with the President signature;
I'd. BY passage by vote of both Houses. in
due form. and the Presidents neglect to re-
turn it within ten days With his objections;
I'd By passage by vote Of both Houses, in
due form, veto by the President, consid-
GRAFTON by both Houses, and Q passage BY
two-thirds votes. The President, an Execu-
tive officer, not . judge OF law.
The Constitution su bsttutes this recossid-
eration and passage as an equivalent to the
Presidents signature. After that, he and
MI other officers must execute the law,
whether In fact constitutional or not
For the President to refuse TO execute q
Law daily passed. because he thought i, I'M
constitutional, aaer he had vetoed 1t for thai
reason, would, in effect, be for him to exc
cute his veto cad leave the law unexeculed.
Il may be said he may do his al his peril.
True: but that peril 10, to be impeached for
violating his oath OF Office, as is now being
done.
II, indeed, laws duly passed By Congress
affecting generally the welfare of any consid-
cradle portion Of the people had been com
monty, or as usage declared BY the Supreme
Court unconstitutional, and therefore inoper-
ative. there might seem to be some palliation
It not justification to the Executive TO refuse
% execute law in order to have its consti-
tested BY the Court
It is possible 70 conceive Of so fragrant !
ease Of unconst nationality IS to be such
MA dow Of justification to the Executive. pro.
vided one ~ the same time conceives an
equally fragrant case Of stupidity, ignorance
and ,mbecility, or worse, 10 the represents
yves OF the PEI pl. and 10 the Senate Of the
United Sates; but both conceptions are 60
rarely poseibie and absurd a. not to furnisi,
ground OF governmental action.
MORE PREcEDEsTs.
How stands the fact? Have the Snnreme |
Court SO frequently declared The Iav. III caas
Tress IN conf Ct With the Constitution 8 = - /
lord ths President just ground for belief. q, /
hope even, that the Court will do 90 in ! NV. |
"a instanceY think may safeiy assert !.
legal Tact, thase incs the Frs. decision az
he Supreme Court. till The day Of this A.
argument, no hay passed By Congress affect. /
ing the general welfare has ever, by the iude- |
ment o. tnai Couft, been SET aside r. NJ y lar
nsnxm because OF uncans.itutionslltv a. ,he
yr,nndsork OF its decision.
Ia three cases ,nly hasihe indignant rf.h..s I
Joes4 keen is6ssncsd BY the snpposed ~.
lle. htteSn The lAw ard The Cans,j,u,io,
nd thsf wsre cases Altering the Cont i,.ef
md its own dutisa. and where the Law seemed
o interfere with IL oun prrrogasise..
Touching privileges and prerogstiv.a have
'een the shipwreck Of mauy ! Wholesome
= y = The fqre rpea. tAe sensitive iness1j
= TT ~ ,.inaeala. pssa'smennry or Judicial.
hr a.st cAss questioning the vaiisiify Of 4
no s."nes+a. y H-s barn =. IL sD.llss,
m m n.,,,.,',r, Conn decided mon he pp-
aoas's'y q the act Ut March 23. Izo2.
.rr.A I, e. - = psnl. p IA. winch eDn-
po0 and grant certificate, az ;nvs,;S 80
IONS. The Conrt h-td rhas such eo.. - psn I
% eoeefqrrad upen thu Ceurt q 49, sSs,1
- Nrndittson, the Court receiving =, +.
fs8tnsi lurae4iction from In pfovi1iors -
be Consultation. Thia decisiou vouM T. ,,
saFV ssintallig;6ie vere ii not s4slainrA 8 /.
noes e he eass q Unifed sslsise :. Fer.
HIS ~ nusstd. b. ~ ar4;na Tf.;..A
taaee ~ Todd decided Fskesnrs n. 17p4 )