Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-07-17

PRESIDENT ARTHUR last week vetoed
the bill restoring FitZ John Porter to his
rank in the army. The action of the
President will be generally endorsed by
the veterans OF the late war and patri-
Otic people generally In his message.
the President considered it unnecessary
to discuss the merits of the case, but
based his objections upon the constitu-
tional grounds. The House passed the
bill over the veto, but the Senate refused
to concur in the action of the House.
ConcerHing the action of the President,
the New York Times, which is not es-
pecially friendly to the administration,
says:
The points made by the President in
vetoing the bill providing for the restO-
ration of Fitz John Porter to the rank
of Colonel in the army, fortified as they
are by an able opinion of the Attorney
General, appear to us to be simply unan-
Swerable. In the first place, the Presi-
dent declares that the DILL in effect Gre
ates new Office in the army and author
ICES the President to I'LL it by the appoint
ment of person designated by the
Congress. That body has no constitu-
LioLal power thus to restrict the choice
of the President in making an appoint
ment. 1t can not create an Office on
condition that certain person shall be
named for it, nor can it impose upon
the President the duty of appointing a
particular individual to any Office which
ne has the power tn ill. Either the bill
undertakes to do this or it has no effect,
except to advise and counsel the ap-
pOintment, and advice and COUNSEL can
not properly be made the subject of legal
enactment. This point is very clearly
presented, and it is one of unassailable
strength. If Congress can require the
President to appoint Fitz John Porter
Colonel in the army, il can require him
to appoint designated person for any
other position ere ted by law. If it can
with prOpriety create a new Office in tho
army on condition that a certain person
be named for it, or with the advice that
he be named for it, it can with the same
propriety create other offices on like eOu-
ditiOns and with the same restriction.
The improperly is obvious and the mis-
ehisv0us tendency of the precedent is
equally plain.
"But the President does not by any
means rest his objections to the bill on
this point alone. He has another OF
equal strength and validity. General
Porter WAS tried by a court martial.
against the character, ability and up
rightness of whose members ne allega-
tiOn has ever bsen made. Il had before
it the evidence bearing upon the Offenss
for which he was tried in its complete
ness. Everything relating to his position
and his action which could have any
bearing on his eOnuct at the particular
juucture at which his Offsnse was COM
ted, and which, therefore, had any rele-
vancy to charges against him, was before
the court martial. 1t was the sole trib
unal for determining the case, and It's
findings and judgment had all the force
and validity of those of a tribunal of
exclusive jurisdiction.
Neither the President nor Congress
has any right or constitutions! power to
set aside the judgment of such tribu-
nal. 1t weuld be dangerous precedent
to set, for it would utterly destroy the
character and dignity of courts martial
and overthrow the only means provided
for the maintenance of military disci+
pline. If Congress can in time of peace,
aud twenty years after the judgment
has been rendered, thus make futile the
of court martial, 1t can
exercise the same power in time OF war
and Immediately after the judgment is
rendered. The dangerous results of such
a power in the Legislature are beyond