The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-09-02

atOr Trumbull was chairman OF the 1u- |
dietary committee, which framed and
reported the bill, and in his speech, ex-
planning its provisions, he said, and no
one disputed him, that the suspended
officer, if no successor should be con-
frmed, would at once resume his Office
upon the adjournment of the senate.
No stronger testimony as to the real
meaning of law ought to be required
than the statements of the men, who
framed and passed it, made while it
was pending. But there is something
additional. During the sixteen years
which elapsed between its passage and
the accession of President Cleveland,
the invariable practice of the govern
ment was so to act. A celebrated case
occurred during the first year of Grants
administration, an account of which is
contained in the twelfth volume of the
Reports of the Court of Claims and
the one hundredth volume of United
States Supreme Court Reports-the
case of Bowling Embry, deputy post
master at Nashville, Tennessee, who
was suspended by the President, and
man named Hopkins designated in his
place. Hopkins nomination was not
consented to by the senate, and imme-
diately after its adjournment, in July,
1870, the postmaster-general wrote to
Embry directing him to resume his
from any one. Two or more attorneys
general-one of whom was General
Charles Devens, now judge of the SUI
preme judicial court of Massachusetts,
have given exhaustive opinions sus-
tanning this view, and no one thought
of contesting it until the exigencies of
the political situation drove the minds
of some of the democratic leaders in
this state to desperation.
The law being so, there is therefore
some possibility, with republican ma
jority of eight in the senate, that Mr..
Smalley, Mr.. Spear, Mr.. Redington, and
the other designatees of President Cleve-
land in Vermont, may have to step
down and out -" as soon as the senate
shall have adjourned next summer
not that we believe, or hope, that the
republican majority will make any fac
tious opposition to the removal of re-
publican officers merely because they
are republicans. If any one of them
has neglected his duties, or has COM
mitted wrongful act, he ought to be
removed; and the President has right
to nominate a democrat in his place,
which right should be acquiesced in by
the republican senators. But no neg
lect or dereliction has yet been shown
in the case of suspended republican
officer in Vermont, and it is extremely
doubtful if any will be. Mr.. Atkins
has testified to Major Stearns' compe-
tency and faithfulness, and Mr.. Small
ley has paid General Wells similar
compliment.
When the republican officers shall have
resumed their places, after the adjourn
ment of the senate, what then There
is no doubt of the Presidents power to
suspend them again and to designate
the same democrats he designated be-
fore to fill their places. In other words,
General Wells, Major Stearns, Mr. Tut
tie, Mr.. Moody, Mr. Perry and their
fellow-republicans may again be tenn
porarily put out of office, and Mr.. Small
ley, Mr.. Spear, Mr.. Redington, Mr..
Morse, Mr.. Holden and the other demo-
cratic designatees be temporarily rein
stated. The President can do these
things; but it may well be doubted if
he will. The possibility of such occur
rences was discussed during the pen
dency of the tenure of Office bill in
1869, and complaint was made that there
was no provision against it. Senator
Trumbull made this reply:
1t is true that the bill does not provide
that the President shall not do this But
would it not be tritiing with the legislation
Of the country-trihng with that oath which
the President takes to see that the laws are
faithfully eXecuted-if the moment that by
the execution of the law an officer was re-
stored to his former position he should
again suspend him? This would be trihing
with the statute. 1t is not fair interpreta-
ton to beput upon the bill. The presump-
ton is that when the senate had distinctly
refused to confirm an officer appointed in
lieu of suspended officer, and had also by
its vote declared that that officer ought not
to have been suspended no President
would think the moment the senate had adj
journed in defiance of its action, OF again
suspending the officer who was by law re-
stored to his former position, unless it was
for some cause subsequently arising.
If, after the refusal of the senate to
consent to the removal of a faithful and
competent republican officer, the Presi-
dent should again suspend him, with
out cause, after the end of the session
the republican party could welcome the
issue with confidence. The result Of
such acts would be an overwhelming