Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1868-04-29

diction he held that the only question for
them to decide was that Of crime or no crime,
and further that no action could be so consid-
cred in connection with which evil intention
was not brought He illustrated this propo-
sition by considering homicide committed by
q madmon, by the superstition that the Presi-
dent should violate the law after losing his
reason, and by reference to the acts of Mr..
Lincoln in constituting military tribunals in
loyal States, which conduct though pronounc.
cd destitute Of warrant by The Supreme Court,
had been upheld by Congress on the ground
that the motive was good. Having thus, as
he claimed, shown the lalsty of the doctrine
advanced by the managers on that subject, he
said he should consider the question whether
the President had right to remove Mr.. STAN
ton and to grant letter Of authority to Gen.
Thomas, for on these two issues hung the fate
Of eight Of the articles.
As 80 the first point, he held that the civil
tenure law did not apply to Mr.. Stanton, be-
cause he was not appointed by Mr.. johnson,
but even if Mr.. johnson is not serving his
own but Mr.. iincoln's term, Mr.. Stanton's
tenure Of Office expired one month after the
expiration Of his. first term and if Mr. Lin
coin was now living, Mr. Stanton could be re-
lioved by him, and so equally can he be by
Mr.. johnson, if the latter is merely serving
out the remainder Of his term. IN support Of
his proposition that the President had power
10 remove Mr.. Stanton under the law of 1889,
Mr.. Groesbeck quoted the letter Of Mr., Adj
ans to Mr. Pickering, announcing to him not
that he was to be removed, but that he was
actually removed and successor appointed.
lie went on to argue that as there was room
for doubting the constitutionality of the law,
and the President had ayailed himself Of the
counsel Of those specially designated by the
Constitution to give it to him, he must be
held gultess Of crime in constituting il as he
did In regard to the consttutionality Of
that law, he adycrted to the fact that those
who framed il he could not address with much
hope Of changing their opinion, but he would
make the inquiry whether assuming its con-
sttutionaliiy the Presidents action could be
deemed criminal.
Mr. Groesbeck combatted earnestly the po-
sition assumed by Mr. Boutwell, that the
President is required to execute all laws,
even if they are pronounced unconstitutional
By the supreme court, claiming that in such
cases he was bound by his higher obligations.
Aiter reading various well-known principles
of Interpretation, one Of which was that long
settled practice determined the construction Of
law, be claimed that the meaning of the act of
1889 was so determined and fixed by govern
ment usage and judicial decisions that the
President had the right to challenge the con-
stitutonality Of a law.
At this point the Senate took recess.
On renssembling Mr. Groesbeck resumed
his argument. maintaining that the debate in
Congress in 1889 proved the correctness of
the Presidents construction of the laws then
passed He then cited acts of 1889 of the
Post Office Department and those ~ 1So5
and ISlg creating the Navy Post Ofice and
Interior Departments. an assuming mr. affirm.
inc tbe RIGHT of removal bv the President ms
set forth In the acts Of 1880. Aqainst all
this prenondeance of construction and pre.
cedont there yyas onnosad only the act of
1867. and Mr. Groelbeck claimed that there
was truly Ground for doubt and hesitation ON
the part ii the President sufficient 10 induce
him TO resist it, with view of having the
matter determined by the Supreme Court.
Tie asked If the President was to be convicted
and deposed because he had acted on the in
terpretations sanctioned biz his constitutional
advisers. by the 9Stb CONGRESS and the Sn-
preme Court and the uniform practice of the
Government
Describing the character of the relations
between the President and Mr. Stanton. Mr.
Groesbeck insisted II was shown bv the testi-
mony of Gen. sherman and Others that the
President acted in the public interest in re-
moving him. He also claimed that the Pres
dent had prepared a qlo toqrranto and gladly
availed himself of the proceedings brought
against Gen Thomas. in order to anticipate
the slow proceedings he must otherwise have
adopted to secure the decision Of the Court.
He further ridiculed the idea that the Presi-
dents intention was evil and dangerous. since
he had applied to Gems. Grant. Sherman and
Thomas. men whom the country delight to
honor, to accept the place which it is now al
legged he wished to be filled with tool to be
used for base purposes. Mr.. Groesbeck also
contended that the Presidents acauiescence
in the Tenure of Office law as long as possible
was strong point in his favor.
Recapituatinr his argument up to this
point. Mr.. Groesbeck proceeded to consider
the question whether the President had the
right to make the appointment ad interim,
and claimed that he had such right under
the act of 1895. and showed the provisions
of that act. as APPLYING to this case, were not
affected by the law of 1868
Passing over the 9th article with very brief
comments, Mr. Groesbeck read the sedition
law, and said while it closely resembled the
Z lllfb article mnqh loss pbippt lima blg