The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-11
THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE.

lno resiuenC anu the majority Oh Cne OeLdte
the Republican members have the right side
Of the issue we do not believe can be Sc
riously debated, though, of course, there will
be pardonable interest to hear what Mr.. Pugh
and his Democratic colleagues may be able to
say for Mr.. Cleveland. The speech Of Mr..
Edmunds, it seems to us, absolutely and ire
futably settles the justice, the propriety and
the consistency Of the Senate's demand,
which was arbitrarily refused by Attorney
general Garland at the direction of the Presi-
dent. The case is a simple one, and yet it is
easy to throw up so much dust about it as to
partially obscure the real point in dispute.
United States district attorney for Ala
bama was appointed by and with the advice
and consent Of the Senate. He held his
Office by virtue Of that joint tenure, a
tenure Of which the Senate's consent
was as important part as the
Presidents nomination. During the recess Of
the Senate the President saw fit to suspend
the attorney, and name another to perform
temporarily the duties of the Office pending
this suspension. When Congress assembled,
the fact of the suspension and the name Of
the man proposed to be appointed we're sent to
the Senate. Upon this state of facts the
judiciary committee requested of the Attor-
ney-general the papers on file in the depart
ment relative to the conduct of the Office by
the suspended attorney, to the end that they
might be advised Of the propriety Of an act
to which their consent was asked. For, be it
understood that the officer was only 'tsus-
pended" he was not 'tremoyed;" but the Sem
ate was asked to be party to his removal, as
it must be in the case of every Suspended"
official. The Senate cannot act upon the
nomination of any man to succeed ''sus-
pended officer without being party to re-
moval; and as the officer to be removed is one
of their own creation, 1T is remarkable
proposition that they may not have
all the information on file in a
public department to determine whether
or not they should give their advice and con-
as important. and as constitutional, and as in
dependent as that of the President It is an
attack upon the orderly and constitutional
method of the government to say that the
Senate must act blindly or, as Senator
Payne, of South Carolina, so aptly
put it, on like occasion fifty years
ago-as quoted by Mr.. Edmunds-
must 'act by faith and not by knowledge.
1t will be conceded, without question, that
Andrew Jackson was President whose
strength of will and whose relation to his
party were as strong as those Of even the pres
ent executive. Mr.. jackson assumed to with
hold similar information from the Senate, in
1885, to that which the Senate is now seeking
from Mr.. Cleveland, and the very next day
after Old Hickory declined to furnish it, the
Senate, by unanimous vote, rejected the
nomination Of a man to succeed the one to be-
displaced. That was the verdict Of Demo
cratic Senate upon the usurpation and 'spre-
rogative" assumed by no less a President and
no less Democrat than Andrew jackson.
Mr.. Edmunds impregnably fortified his po-
sition by showing the attitude held by the
Senate when under the control Of the exist
ing Democratic party. On the 7th of April,
1879, Mr.. Hayes being President, and the
Senate then under the control of Democratic
majority, and the judiciary committee COM
posed Of Mr.. Thurman, Mr.. Mcdonald, Mr..
Bayard, Mr.. Garland, Mr.. Lamar, David
Davis, and Messrs. Edmunds, Conkling and
Carpenter, the following letter was ordered
and written:
1.-THE Attorney general of the United States:
"Sir-Under the direction of the Judiciary
committee of the Senate / have the honor to
request that you will communicate to the
committee any papers or information in your
possession touching the question of the pro-
priety of the removal of Michael Shaffer, Chief
Justice Of the Supreme Court of the Territory
of Utah, and the appointment of David T.
Corbin to that Office. Very respectfully,
s.AILEN G.. THURMAN Chairman"
Here is even stronger case than the one
Mr.. Edmunds was considering. This Demo
cratic committee, three members of which are
now members of the administration, not only
ask for information respecting the conduct of
an Office by an officer suspended" but they
pointedly and in terms, ask the Attorney gen
eral for information respecting 'the pro-
priety Of the removal Of an oiicer-that
sacred '4prerogative" which, Democratic doc
trine now is, resides exclusively and solely in
the breast Of the President and to attempt to
interfere with which, on the part of the Sem
ate, the present President says in a message
to the Senate. is an impertinent usurpation of