The New York herald., 1868-04-28

sana u 10 rers ge of the District Court OF Lou
Gathren &c cerS and the United % }sOm Sis1et tness
- ihat the President had no power to reneve scvs
,,r stanton. The judicial opinions having g,ns anus Us
the Preside Mt the next resort that OF The states
men law ?ers and publicists who nave ron @ e''e
win ce found that the great criminal who IS at your
bag has not better support than ne has a,n aouna
the doctrine which has been so strongly urged upon
the authority of Lord Coke, that contemporah9ous
rd Is eheu hoWeyer yS Il viii hardly be pretend
ed Isuppose that there anything OF hs uescIlption
which win compare IN value VIII tne asu,nortatve' @ '
might almost say oracuar utterancc OF the federdt-
| fst which was the main agent under Providence IN
securing for the constitution the sappo OF the peo-
rank of classic in the political literature OF America
And yet in the number OF that series,
which is acrbed to the pen OF Alexander Hamilton,
himself perhaps the first among the peers In the con-
venon which framed that instrument IL is assumed
the way of answer to the objection OF in
stability arising from frequent changes OF
was to participate in the business Of appointments
its consent would therefore be necessary to dspace
as well as to appoint; nor was It considered even ne
cessary to reason out q conclusion that was so OBJ
vious and inevitable 1t does not seem to have been
supposed by anybody that power so eminently
limited government out Of the mere fact OF the
silence Of the constitution on that subject and the
failure to provide any other mode OF removal than
by the process of impe chlnent. II the conclusion,
however was not a sound one then 1t was no better
tnan fllSe lretcnce, Wnlcn tnOSc, at least, VINO
concurred in its pretence were morally estopped
from controverlng. And yet It Is to one OF the dis
tnguished authors of these papers, In his quality OF
q legislator, that the nation Is mainly indebted for
the vote which inaugurated and fastened so long
upon it the mschievous and anti ti-repubican doc
trine and practice which 1t has cost revolution to
overthrow 1t does not seem however, to have
effected any change In the opinion OF the distin-
guished author, as we find him insisting, in
letter written ten years afterwards TO Jas
Mchenry, then secretary OF War, that then the
power 10 Ill vacancies happening during recess OF
he n Offices Is.
been once filed, nave become vacant by accidental
circumstances' from the time OF the settlement of
the policy of the government on this subject by its
first Congress down TO the accession OF the younger
Adams in 1925, period of nearly forty years, the
question does not have been agitsted tor the
very satisfactory reason that the patronage
cIcumscribed and the cases OF abuse so rare as TO
attract no attention on C part OF public Ipen. In the
last named year, however, committee was raised by
the Senate headed by Mr.. Benton ana composed Of
nine OF the most eminent statesman OF that day TO
consider the subject OF retaining the power by legis
lation. That committeeslgreed IN the opinion that
violation of the constitution, Which had, i'll their
view, been changed in this regard by constructive
le gsiaton, which was only another name for legsla-
tive cons ruction, and reported sundry bills for It's
correction, not unlike IN some respects, the present
law. These bills failed, Of course, but with
alarming doctrine which, followed the accession
OF the next administration that the public oficcs
like the plunder Of a camp, were the Legitimate
spois OF the victorious party. The subject was re-
vned In 1885 by the appointment of another commit
tee, embracing the great names Of Calhoun, Webster
and Benton for the same object. The result of their
labor was the construction OF biil requiring the
therefor which passed the Senate by vote OF 81 10
10, or nearly twO-thrds OF that body. Mr. Williams
then cited passages from Websters and Calhoun's
speeches. and from writings of Kent and Story, 10
show that the Interpretation put on the con-
stitat!on by the Congress OF l3S9 was erro;
attention TO the fact that The laws referred to
were passed by a very small majority In the
House, and IN the Senate only by the vote OF the Vice
President who had direct interest In their passage.
Continuing, Mr. Williams said-ls there anything in
the proceedings OF the Congress OF 1883 to indicate
that assumed to itself the prerogave OF
ting itself up as an interpreter Oh the fundamental
law The men who composed 1t understood their
functions better than 10 suppose that IT had any
Jurisdiction over questions OF this SORT If Ii had,
nave we; anu juagmenss may % oe reversed on a. re,
exist where was 1t derivedY How was the Congress
to bind tue people by altering law to which it owed
bind its successor by making even Its own enact
ment irrepeaable. If It had right to give an
! opinion upon the meaning OF the constitution, why
may not do the same tningY The President obvI-
ously assumed that they were both better and wiser
than ourselves. II the respect which he processes
for their opinion had animated him IN regard to the
| Congress which has sat under his administration,
the nation would nave been spared much irritation
aud relieved OF the painful necessity OF
ragning the Chief Magistrate OF the republic
at your bar his crimes against order and liberty
and his open defiance Of law. However it may be
with others, am not one OF those who think that all
wisdom and virtue have finished with our fathers or
that they better able to comprehend the import
OF an instrument with whose practical working they
the e'n & Of an expeence Of eighty ave Years an sne
ng from the mistakes which they made In regard to
the future. They made none greater than the illusion
of supposng that II was impossible for institutions TO
throw up TO the surface man like Andrew Johnson;
and yet it was this mistake, aud perhaps no other
that settled the first precedent which likely
10 he followed In regard To the mischevous power OF
removal from once. But IL twenty-nne votes in the
House at that day, making moa IRE majority Of only
seven and nine only ia a Senate that was equally
divided In the first stage OF constitutional life and
with such q President as Washington to ming col
ored light the future OF the republic, hal even
intended 70 give, and did give, construction 10
voters 10 81 constituting more than three-fourths OF
the House ana Of thirty-live to eleven OF nearly q
like proportion OF the other in the maturity Of our
strength with population OF nearly forty millions
and under the light OF experience that had proved
that the short period OF eighty years was capa
bic Of producing what onr prOgenitors supposed TO
be impossible; even m the long tract OF time. But
there H. other consideration that presents itself
Just here and IL II that IL does strike by any
means clear that there was anything in the act
OF 1889 aside from any supposed attempt TO give it
constitution that necessarily inconsistent with
the view OF that instrument which we have been en-
deavoriug to maintain. Taking the authority lodged
by 1t with the President as mere general grant OF
power, there was nothing certainly In its terms to
prevent IT. so far ~ regarded the inferior officers. IL
resulted from the express authority of Congress to
vest the power of appointment I'm the President
alone, that they might have even left the power
as to the superior ones. The power TO remove
In any ease was but an implied one. II
it necessary, as claimed, TO enable the Executive
to perform his proper functions under the constitu
tion, instead OF raising the power In himself by the
Illegal increucc that 10 must belong to him quo ere
cutio IL presented one OF the very for which 1t
Is provided expressly that Congress shall make all
laws that shalt be necessary aud proper for carrying
into execution all powers vested by the constitution
In the government Of the United states, or in
any department or oiicer thereof" To infer,
IN the face OF such provision a. this,
tfat any or all powers necessary 10 either de-
patmen of the government belong To them oi course,
because they necessary, ~ reflection on
the understandings of the framers of the constitIi
hon and ~ IN erect 10 nullify the provision Itself 10y
enabling the other departments Of the government
to dispense entirely with the action OF the law
maker. But admitting the act Of 1889 10 iinpart TO
us extent al tuat II is claimed to have decided, 1t Is
further insisted that the untOward precedCnt has
been rpene, into unateratie law by long AMI unin-
teliuptcd pract ce In conformity with 10. III 10 were
even true, as stated, there would be nothing marvel
ous IN The TACT that IL has been followed by other
legislation Of o Kindred character. II ~ not to be
uuuOted that general opinion did prevail Tor many
NcdiS that all government