Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1870-09-27

uent BucbaDan. when he sent the POSTMASTER
Genei al to discharge the duties of Secretary o.
War, and as was attempted by President John
son, when he sent Thomas to oust Stanton
upon the hypothesis that the President had cres-
ted vacancy. But the law OF sd July, 1865
Declaring, iPsO Jacto, alternstes, expressly re-
peals the previous appointing power of the
President. And who can say, that Congress did
not intend to repeal a Law which makes the
without consulting the President-thus lessen
lng the responsibility of the Heads OF Depart
ments ?
Ard as there had been an effort TO retransfer
the Indian bureau to the War Department, who
can say that there was not a purpose to repeal
ne interior Department? And as ''assistdnt
heads of departments are unknown to the
Constitution, while " heads OF departments" are
created constitutional advisers TO the President
xno can say that the purpo e was not to abolish
he once OF Assistant Secretary Of the Treas
ury? And as the keeping of the government de-
posts has long been an agiating issue and at one
nme % formed the slogan of party; and those de-
posi's now are beyond any sum ever coritem-
plated, and certainly beyond any possible Sc
curly by bonds, and even beyond lifetime as
certsinment by count, who can say that it was
rot the purpose of Congress to repeal the Sub
Treasury law? In a word who can saw IN n
TINS mode was not adopted 10 awaken the
country and produce a great reformation in the
administration of government?
know that it is a fashion to 90 to the Debates
ana consult them, in order TO determine the in
tentlon Qf the lay makers. But in the impeach-
ment trial, the able managers and the Senators,
clearly showed, from numerous precedents, the
inadmissibility and the great danger OF this
practice. Indeed, il has become a canon OF inter
probation, that such a practice cannot be tole-
rated. The legislative act, like any other solemn
deed, shuts out all antecedent and contempora-
neous parol evidence, aboat which there NAV be
perpetral misunderstandings. The prosne
preamble OF the Statute, the re ason and spirit.
the equity ofthe Statute, can only be consulted
when the words of enactment are dubious
When these are clear and explicit, however
ha
may be, as to its effects and consequences, nav
if it be ever so immoral, judges are not allowed
to construe away the words or TO deny their Or
dinary Specification.
Here are words Of repeal. clear and Z Jlcit,
and with no ambiguity whatever. They emu
merate schedule of acts, and declare them all
repealed. Ito est ter scrip.a. The effect takes
the country by surprise. and every one is ready
TO say that it could not have been Intended. j
would give all possible effect to the argument,
d6 'noonrenienti, in proper case. But this is
not proper case. Such an argu ment-can only
be employed where the words themselves leave
doubt as to what was the intention of Congress.
when that intention has been manifested
we are not allowed to resort to the
argument db inconrenientL By doing so,
we might escape present inconvenience.
But, on the other hand, we should establish the
doubtful precedent of leaving every executive
sfficer to construe the clearly expressed legisa-
tive will for himself. Thereby he might resolve
that he is still in office, when the law creating
claims which Congress had forbidden to be paid.
Such officers argue, like Amos Kendall, that
Congress could not have intended to allow a
credit which 1t was the duty of the Post Office
Department to ascertain. He might, like An
drew johnson, express his surprise and disgust
that all the Presidents orders had to be trans
mitted through the Commanding General; and
like johnson, he might claim the right to remove
officers, when the law of Congress had forbidden
II: The better maxim seems to be that of Pres
ident Grant, that If the law is obnoxious and
impolitic, enforce il more strictly, SO that the
people may demand its repeal.
10 the argument that many of the officers,
ignorantly continued to exercise their former
duties, and that all their acts will be void, il j.
enough to say that the de facto principle NAV
apply. But very different questions are noa
presented. MIR. Richardson, Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury, has resigned. He may have
acted after he ceased to be such. Those act
may be valid de fdctO; but when the question OF
appointing successor shal be presented to the
President, he will have to consider whether the
law creating the office remains i'm force. So the
Treasurer and the Comptroller will have to
consider the requisitiOns sigued by Mr.. Cox
ana, what rs or greater moment, the admins
tration and the people will have to consider the
safety of the public funds in the hands o.
assistant treasurers whose functions have ce ased
by the repeal of the law for their appointm antS
The bondsmen of the custodians OF public money
will object to paying defalcations, because the
law has been repealed. Securities are always
favorites of the law. Courts may refuse
e;. to enforce orc penalties because the law ere
law has ceased thus can there be any
longer legal safety for money in the Treasury?
And If ii be possible for the Executive to post
pone the question, it is not possible for the
country long to avoid it. 1t may be presented
In a thousand different forms. and in shapes
where things may have been done which Con-
gress cannot legaliZe. Certainly il cannot le-
galize a. to felOnies for that would be &c post
Jdcto.
L have no interest in the question beyond anv
other lawyer or citizen If il be a Congressional
blunder, for which the republican party will be
held responsible, in common with every mem.
Der Of the party, must share the disadvantage.
III 1t affect some Of my clients benefcially, 1t
Will postpone others injuriously. None of US
should judge from any other standpoint than TO
uphold all constitutional laws as they are. As
IT is great question, il is the right and duty OF
every citizen to give it his best thought. 1 have
arrived at the conclusion that the law m cans
what IL says, and hence the acts declared 20
have been repealed, have been repealed. This
may involve the necessity of an extra session of
congress, SINCE with that body alone is the
remedy.
have duly considered the argument that sub
sequent appropriation bills provide tor the paw
ment of officers appointed under these repealed
laws. III the question were one of constructive
repeal, there would be some force in this view
But the words are of positive repeal. And the
law for appointment having ceased to exist one
set OF men could as well claim the APPROXIMATION
as another. The intention of Congress being
expressed in words. We cannot argue con-
structive repeal of the repealn act by inference
This would be 10 favor repeal 10y implication.
GEO. W. PAsCHAL.
5c3 ID street, Washington, September q, 1S.0.