Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-04-26

Supreme Court, claiming that 10 such
cases be was bound by bis higher obliga.
lions, and after reclting various wei
known principles OF interpretation-one
was, that long settled practise had de.
termined the construction of law-he
claimed that the meaning Of the act o.
1889, was so determined and fixed by
general usage and judicial decisions, that
the President had the right to challenge
the coDstituti0nality of g law in conflict
with, and yet not repeating the old law,
which had been framed and so long con.
strued as being embodied in the princi-
Piles Of the Constitution regarding the
power of removal.
At this point the Senate took a recess,
and on reassembliBg, MI. Groesbeck re-
sGmed his argument, maintsiDing that
the debates in Congress in 1879, proved
the correctness Of the Presidents con-
~structiOn of the laws then passed. He
then cited the acts of 1883 in relation to
D PostOfhce Department, and those Of
1925 and 1919, creating the NAVY POST
office and Interior Departments, all as-
Stunning or affirming the rigbtof removal
by the President, as set forth in the act
of 1883; and said that against all this
pF~epOndersnce Of construction and prece-
dent, there was opposed only the act OF
1861, aud he claimed that there was truly
ground for doubt and hesitation on the
part of the President Sufficient 20
induce him to resist it, with a
view Of having the matter deter
mined by the Supreme Court. He
asked if the President vas to be con-
victed because he acted on the i~nterpFe-
tation sanctioned by his constitutional
advisers, by the Thirty eighth Congress,
by the Supreme Court, and the uniform
practice OF the Government?
Describing the relation between the
President and Stanton, Mr.. Grossbeek
insisted that it was shown by the testi-
mOny Of Gen. Sherman and others that
the President acted IN the public interest
in removing him. He also claimed that
the President had proposed a quo war
rautO, and gladly awaited himself of the
proceedings bro9Ght against General
Thomas in order TO anticipate the slow
proceedings he must otherwise have
adopted to secure q decision of
the Court. He further ridicuied the
idea that the Presidents intention was
evil and dangerous, since he had applied
70 Gems Grant, Sherman and Thomas,
men whom the country delighted to
honor, to accept the place which it is
now alleged be sought 10 ill with q tool,
to be Used for bsse purposes. Mr.. Groes-
beck also considered that the Presidents
acquiescenee ia the Tenure-0f-0fHe law,
as long as possible, was q strong proof in
mis- favor, RecapItulating his argument
to this point, Mr.. Groesbeck proceeded
to consider the question whethar the
hsd the right to make the ap-
sd interim, and claimed that
be had such right under the act of 1895,
and to show that the provisions OF that
act were not affected by the law of 1863,
be made the same argument ads
vsnced by Mr., Curtia, aud went on to
instance various presidents of similar
appointments, made whilea the Senate
was in session-dweIling at length on
The case Of Holt, appointed by Buchanan
10 succeed Floyd, which he said required
particular notice because the Senate had
made particular inquiry into It and
,alied upon the President for an explain
alton, which he gave, to their entire sat
sfRetion, j~ustifying himself under the
law to which Mr. johnson refers
n this defense. Passing over the ninth
lrticle with very brief comments, Mt.
Iroes6eck read the seditiUn law, aud
aid that while it closely resembIed the
al i4Cict Al was Alucu less ODlEcLfOQ-
.ble and offensive, for that punished The
publication OF something eeolly written.
this made criminal words hastily
poken under trying p~rOv0easions. He
hen read q burlesqae law and promised
o carry out his understanding OF that
which created great merrimeut.
With regard % the lIth article he said
lie would only note the fact, that the &C.
OF the President ia sending 3 tele-
to Parsons, Governor of Aiahamal
which had formed the subject of a three
Iours speech, to take place months before
be Reconstruction aet, which it was
opposed to obstruct. In conclusion he
e-summed up mis- argument, aud ex
ressed confidence in the tinal result, and
characterized the precedents OF caDvic-
referred to by others, as "aascon
.ghts Of warning" rather than as ezsnJ-
les for guidance, and pronounced aNoW-
lg eulogy on the life, character and SER
ices Of tne President.
Tne Court and Senate then adjourned.