Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-21
ffOm INC baIlIU0It NdAotto.I
DEBATE on THE TENURE-oF-oFFIeE

0LIAA
/ WASHINGTON, March ~, ls6s.
! The current dsbate in the Senate on
| the bill to repeal the Tenure-oEOhic
act, without reference to it's final dlspo-
| sition, is important, inAsmuch as 1t indi-
oates an irFeconeilable difference of IL
| terests, IL not OF political sentiment, in
the Radical party. Uader ordinary Cir
lroumstRnces, s division of the ,spoils
slways weakens q political organization,
/ but the existing antagonism in this be-
1 half will be without 9 parallel. La4
The pointzofz chief interest in the CON-
troversy grows out OF the inconsistency
which marks the conduct of particular
Senators. Mr-Eessenden- thought he
had an opportunity to be very causlie to
/ his fellow-members, presuming that bic
own course was beyond criticism in this
respect. He would vote fer the repeal,
and could do SO consistently, because be
bad never favored its passage. There
was q Suppressio Ueri involved In this
claim, which was extracted from him by
q side-bar eross-examinatiOn. He was
fuaily impelled TO acknowledge that he
failed to vote at all upon the question az
difference to the aoishes and opinions Of
his Radical c0nfreTes IN Congress!
1 In truth the only members OF theSen-
ate who can, with even q show OF con-
slstency, nov vote 10 strike this law from
the statute book are the few COnserva-
tives who opposed its passage by their
votes ; and the altered condition of things
the fact that the Executive power is
now welded by g military chieftain
whose known ambitious projects are dan
gerons to public liberty, would almost
| Justify them in declining to become re-
sponsibie for strengthening his arm to
that mischievons end. On the other
hand, it is quite plain that those Radical
! Senators who now refuse to repeal the
law are theonly mes who will not have
| deliberately staItifed themselves. MI.
I Howard has dens himssff great credit by
the bold avoWAi thst he had never learn
| ed, and nevereoo1ld lesfn -hs1A-alGiUla
aTo crook the pregnant hinges OF the knee
That thrift might follow faTning.na 81 aa
The course of Yates, of Illinois, Is
perhaps the most ludicrously degrading.
This gentleman Is q type OF the class inn
| paled by Howard. lie, while acting as
q Judge on the late impeachment trial,
went 30 far as to prOaouncs a deliberate
legeI opinion thkt irrespective of the act
Ia question the removal of a civil officer
by the Executive, without specific
cause, Wss ample ground for impeach-
ment and eviction from his office. In
this DEBATE be bas seen proper to make a
sp~resd-eagle speech, full OF froth and
~tWaddle, in fayer OF an unconditional
surrender to the one man power OF I'M
limited sway ia this regsrd, in pure def
Q t. the hsroism of Gen. Grant 7" in
a thuussnd b.tties,o and the consequent
unbounded confidence the people repose
in him. / wss, therefore, much gratI-
fed 10 hear the old hypooFita, Fsssen-
den, take him doWa after the following
fashion:
"He did not think it necessary or dig
nified to be continually announcing the
confidence of the people and of Con-
zress in the conduct of the President
The people had but recently elected him,
and 1t was 20 be PRESUMED that they had
confidence in him. He did not mean to
lecture the Senate, but he thought 1t was
not necessary or in good taste to be con-
tiDually slavering the President with
praise, and talking about his battles and
victories. Gen. Grant had ceased to
be a General, and had become President
Of the United States, and UIs likely to
hare q hard time Of t." ANN
Democrats and Conservatives in both
branches of Congress should hsve borne
il mind in considering whist their duty
in the promises enjolnad, two or three
points-namsly, that M. Calhoun and
Mr., Benton, besides hosts Of other lead
ing Democratic statesmen, maintained
that as the Constitution required the con-
currisg action OF the President ard the
Senate to put a mar into Office, the Presi-
dent alone could not undo that which he
was unable TO do without the consent OF
the Senate; and secondly, that the re-
peal of this Law upon the grounds as
sumed in this debate will not remit the
matter back as it stood before the law
was passed. 1t will be hailed as a delib-
crate surrender of power in respects new
er before claimed by any President. In
short, the present reasoning will be re-
garded IS a legislative exposition of the
Constitution, ~warrsnting a construction
which may ultimately deprive the Sem
ate of all agency whatever in sppoint-
ments ss wall as removals. How ex-
tremes meet! s.r-rs