The New York herald., 1869-03-18


The debate in the Senate on the bill to re-
peal the Tenure Of ONCE act has called out
the best talents of that body. The speeches
were more terse and to the point and less en-
cumbered by unnecessary verbiage or political
claptrap than any that had been deljyered in
the Senate for long time before. This was
particularly the case with the speeches Of
Senator'S who were in favor of repeating the
be repealed or the amendment reported by the
Judiciary Committee, simply suspending its
operation until the next session Qf Congress,
should be passed. Those who favored the
views and report of the Judiciary Committee,
as Mr.. Howard, of Michigan, and Mr.. Ed
munds, Of Vermont, maintained that the law
was. good one and ought to remain on the
statute book, though the former gentleman,
for tho sake Of being in harmony with his
brother Senators, was willing to vote to sus-
pend 1t for . certain time; but he felt that
In doing 80 he did great deal and he
would not under any circumstances agree to
its repeal. OF course the Senators who op-
pose the repeal Of the act expressed confidence
in General Grant, and talked great deal
about his services to the country, but no one
will be deceived by these expressions. These
Senators care nothing for the President. They
have got the Executive under their feet, and
they intend to hold him there If they can.
Out Of compliment to General Grant, or rather
for the sake Of the Offices which they want dis
tributed, they would suspend the operation of
the law few months; but they are resolved to
keep the power, if possible, over General
Grant and all succeeding Presidents.
Something was said about the necessity of
keeping the Executive power within limits and
of the Senate representing the people in doing
this. Why, the President represents the peo-
pie more directly than the Senators. They
are not chosen by the people, but by the Legis-
latures Of the States he is elected by popular
vote and for shorter term. There is far less
danger to liberty and good government from
power being invested in him than in political
oligarchy composed Of few men elected by
politicians and not by the people. Then the
OF our government all through
Its history has acted smoothly and hap
PLY enough without this Tenure of
Office act. Indeed, it is since that act was
passed that we have had more trouble, more
ferent branches Of the government, and more
danger to our institutions than ever before. I
The attack OF Mr.. Edmunds on the democrats \
in Congress for voting solidly for the repeal of
the act was mean and unjust However
foolish and narrow minded they may have
acted on other occasions, they have undoubt-
edly acted from conviction and principle on
his; for as a political party they would gain
more by the conflict and trouble this act would
cause among the republicans and to the repub-
can administration than by its repeal.
Mr.. Fessenden made a most able speech \
in favor of the repeal Of the act. He had
opposed the law from the first and had fore
seen and foretold that its operations would do
more evil than good. His vote would not be
given for repeal on the ground that to vote
a the President. He did not think it neces-
'ary or dignifed to be continually announcing
he confidence ofthe people and Of Congress in
he President. The people had but recently
elected him, and 1t was to be presumed they
had confidence in him. He would vote for the
repeal of the law because it was a bad one,
and not with regard to its effect upon any
person or persons. Mr.. Morton, of Indiana,
took much the same ground, and was in favor
Of the unconditional repeal of the act. He
admitted the law had been passed to meet an
occasion, and that had 1t not
existed no Senator or Representative would
think of proposing such law at this time.
He believed that its immediate repeal was de-
manded by the best interests Of the country,
because the government could not be carried
on successfully under it. He would 60 fur
ther, and say that the country had gained
nothing by the law, even during the adminis-
tration Of President johnson, and that there
publican party had gained nothing. II had
been mistake from the beginning. The
President should be left free to inaugurate and
carry out the great reforms demanded and ex-
pected OF him. Mr.. Thurman, the democratic
Senator from Ohio, urged the repeal Of the
act, and argued that to suspend it only would
he to dregard the constitution, and the people
would naturally conclude that Congress inter
preted the constitution 10 mean one thing
when one man was President and
another thing when another man was
President Mr.. Yates, Of Illinois, made
some telling remarks in the same point Of
view, and declared that the act was an OBJ
stacle in the way OF the President doing his
luty aud an encumbrance upon him in reform
ing the public service. Mr.. Sherman, OF Ohio,
took similar broad and liberal views Of the
evil effects Of the act and the necessity Of re-
pealing it.
These arguments, as we said, were very
much to the point but the Senator'S might
have gone further, and have shown that the
- - and fxil l.or