The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1868-03-06
MESSAGE AE THE PRESIDENT.
His Reasons E,y the Removal OF Mr..
Stanton. I,tt. Argument and Defense.

His Reasons E,Y the Removal OF Mr..
Sfanfon...Ab Abts. Argument and Defense.
WAsHINGTDS, Feb. 24.-The Presi
dent to-day q 10 the Senate the fol-
lowing MESA be- 1t was read in secret
session, laid On the table and ordered
to be printed. The Senate removed
the Injunction of secrecy:
To the Senate Qfhe United States Il
have receivedIa copy of the resolution
adopted by le Senate on the 2lst in
stant, as follows:
"Whereas the Senate have received
and considerG7 The communication of
the President stating that he had re-
moved Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary
of War, and had designated the Adju.
tant General of the Army to act as
Secretary of War 0d interim there
fore
"Resolced By the Senate Cf the United
States, That under the constitution and
laws of the United States the Presi-
dent has no power to remove the
Secretary of War and designate any
other officer to perform the duties of
that office dd Interim"
This resolution is confined to the
power of the President to remove the
Secretary of War and to designate an
other officer to perform the duties of
the office al interim, and by its pream-
BILE is made expressly applicable to the
removal Of Mr.. Stanton, and the des-
ignation TO act al interim of the Adju
tant General of the army.-Without,
therefore, attempting to discuss the
general power of removal as to all Off
GERS, upon which subject no expression
of opinion is contained in the resolu
ton, shall confine myselfto the ques-
ton as thus Iimiled-the power to re-
move the Secretary of War.
1t is declared in the resolution "that
under the constitution and laws Of the
United States the President has no
power to remove the Secretary of War
and designate any other officer to per-
form the duties of that office 0d inter-
im." AS to the question of power un-
der the constitution do not propose
at present to enter upon its discussion.
The uniform practice from the begin
ming of the government, as established
by every President who has exercised
the office, and the decisions of the Su-
preme Court ofthe United States, have
settled the question in favor of the
power of the President to remove all
officers excepting a class holding ap-
pOintments of a judicial character
No practice, or any decision, has eX-
cepted Secretary of War from this
general power Of the President to make
removals from office. 1t is only neces-
sary, then, that | should refer to the
power of the Executive under the laws
of the United States, to remove from
office Secretary of War. The re5olu-
ton denies that under these laws this
power has any existence. In other
words, it affirns that no such authori-
ty is recognized or given by the stat
utes of the country. then, are
the laws of the United States which de-
ny the President the power to remove
that officer? [ know but two laws
which bear upon this question. The
first in order of time is the act of Au-
gust 7th, 1889, creating the Depart
ment Of War, which, after providing
for Secretary a. its principal officer,
proceeds as follows:
"Sec. =. And be it further enacted,
That there shall be in the said depart
ment an inferior officer, to be appoint
ed by the said principal officer, to be
employed therein as he shall deem
proper, to be called the chief clerk in
the Department of War, and who,
whenever the said principal officer
shall be removed from office by the
| President of the United States, or in
any other case of vacancy, shall, dur
ing such vacancy, have the charge and
custody of all records, books and pa
pers appertaining to the said depart
ment."
1t is clear that this act, passed by
! Congress many Of whose members par
ticipated in the formation of the con-
stitution, 50 far from denying the pow
er of the President to remove the Sec
retary of War, recognizes it as exist
ing in the Executive alone, without
the concurrence Of the Senate or of any
other department of the government.
Furthermore, this act does not purport
to confer the power by legislative au-
thority, nor in fact was there any 9TH
er existing legislation through which
it was brought upon the Executive.
The recognition of the power by this
act is therefore complete as recogni
ton under the constitution itself, for
there was no otter source or authority
from which it could be derived. The
other act whichrefers to this question
is that regulating the tenure OF certain
civil officers, passed by Congress on the
second day of March, 1867. The first
section of that Ht is in the following
words: "Thatevery person holding
any civil office o when he has been
appointed by aid with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and every per-
son who shall hereafter be appointed
to any such offi,e, and shall become
u