Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-03-17
Summers Voice for War.
Recognition Wanted In Cuba.
WASHINGTON.

1889 that rule out Stewart That law,
the correspondent says, has been dead
letter on the books for years Ii pro-
vides that the Secretary of the Treasury
shall not purchase public lands or public
securities, aud vet the official records
show that Secretary McCullouch, since
he took the office, purchased ,0l0 acres
of public lands The correspondent in
sists that were it not for the weakness of
some of the Presidents friends, who
quailed befors the clamor Of the Tleasus
~ ring against the appointment of Mr..
Stewart, twoSthirds of Congress would
have willingly voted for the repeal of
the law, which has become obsolete and
useless
WARRINGTON, March l6.-The object
Of the Joint resolution passed by the
Senate to-day proposing removals in civil
Offices in the provisional government Of
Virginia till thirty days are good from
and after its passage SO as TO afford time
TO make such removals, as the limit in the
former resolutions expires this week
Gen Stoneman who is now TO be sue
ceeded by Gen. Candy will not have time
to make the charges before his retire
ment.
Hamilton Fih,, Secretary of State,
arrived to-day.
The following discussion took place in
the Senate on the tenure of Office bill
Trumbull briefly recited the practice and
legislation in regard to appointments and
removal from Office in the past and said
that while the Judiciary Committee were
satisfied that the present administration
ought to be relieved from the embarrass>
ment caused by the tenure or-ofice act,
yet they thought regard for consistency
to the principle underlying the bill re-
quired it should not be abolished, but
only suspended.
Mr.. Sherman said that in the Judiciary
Committee he had not voted to amend
in any way the bill OF the House TO res
peal the act, because be believed IL ought
TO be repealed. Either the constitu>
lion vested in the President an un~
limited and unqualified power of re-
moval from Office or it made the
concurrence of the Senate necessary.
If the constitutional power of the
President to remeye from Office was abb
solute, Congress had, of course, no right
TO restrict it. II, on the other hand, |
according to the theory of the tenHre-of- |
office act, the constitution provided the
Joint action of the President and Senate
should be necessary in order to relieve
them, Congress had no right to evade
that provision by suspending the
law. The proposition 20 suspend
the law implied a theory of the constitu5
ton which was wholly untenable. If
the tenure-Ci-Ofhce act was a good and
constitutional law, to suspend it would
be to disregard the constitution, and the
people would naturally come to the con-
clusion that Congress interprets the con-
stitution to mean one thing when one
man is President and another thing when
another man is President
Mr.. Morton made an argument in ia,
yOr Of the unconditional repeal Of the
act lie could not see any reason for
suspending until next session which was
not an equally good reason for suspend
ing during the whole term Of President
Grant, or for repeating The language
Of the amendment reported by the judi
ciary Committee was the language of
distrust. Ii proposed to put the Presi-
dent on probation until the next session
q Congress, saying to him, If your
Cabinet during the interval does not
please US, the law will again go into
force Far better let the law stand un.
changed than suspend it for eight and
half months. Up to the enactment Of
this law there had been a great unanim>
ity Of opinion among the leading men Of
the country in favor Of the right OF the
President to remove from office without
consulting the Senate, and at the
time OF its passage the act was
regarded as an innovation and a
piece Of exceptional legislation, designed
10 meet a special occasion, the ike of
which had ntver before occurred in the
history Of the country and probably
would never occur again. 1t was Eot IN
tended to govern all future Presidents,
bat only as temporary protection
against the wOuldsbe administration Of
. President johnson, as was shown by the
indubitable fact that if the laM
had not been called into existence by
the conduct Of johnson no Senator or
representative would think Of proposing
such law at this time. Why then cOn-
tinue the law after the occasion for it
had passed lie believed its immediate
repeal was demanded by the best inter
est of the country, because the admins
tratiOn could moi be carried on success
fully under ats operation. lie
would 90 further and say the
country had guiued nothing by the
law even during the administrator Of
johnson and that the Republican party
had gained nothing by it 1t had been
mistake from the beginning. The
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Howe, in
the course Of his argument in the last
Congress in favor OF the law had said
the President might just as well
be allowed TO remove SUE
preme Court Judge at pleasure
as 10 remove a cabinet officer, but the
cases were eHtirely dissimilar, because
according TO the theory Of our system Of
Government, the Judiciary is a separate
deuartment of the government, wholly
independent Of the Executive, while a
cabinet officer IS dependent on the Exec-
utiye for his tenure Of Office.
Mr. Howe explained that he had been
replying to an argument, that in order to
secure an efficient administration Of the
public service it was necessary that cab
met officers and heads OF departments
should be removable at the will of the
President, and had said in reply, that II
the argument was good one, it applied
10 the Judiciary bureau, because it was
equally necessary IN order to secure an
efficient administration of the judicial
system that the President should have
power to remove Judges at will.
Morton said this statement of the views
OF the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr.
Howe, was substantially correct, and that
the explanation did not affect the force o
his reply TO it. lie then proceeded tt
discuss the operation Of the law as it STOOD
and show ihs, instead ofpurifying the pub
lie service, It actually seemed to keep cor
rupt men in Office. The President coul,
not remove any officer unless for cause
and the result was that although h
might have evidence entirely satisfactOI
10 his own mind that an officer was IN