The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-23

matter Of dispute from the foundation OF the
government. = Against the early decis-
ion of the founders Of the government, against
the ancient and safe rule Of Interpretation pre-
scribed by Lord Coke. against the repeatedly ex-
pressed Judgment of exPresident Madison,
against the equally emphatic Judgment of Chief
justice Marshall. and above all. against the I'M
broken practice of the government for seventy
eight years, the Republican leaders now deter.
mined to deprive the President Of the power OF
removing federal officers
The veto OF the bill was written by Mr. Sew
ard. He wrote who felt that in this
particular issue with Congress, whatever might
be the adverse votes of the Senate and House,
time would DO sure to vindicate the position or
the President. But the message did not arrest
the action indeed scarcely the attention, Of
Congress. and the bill was promptly, even hur-
riedly passed over the veto-in the Senate by 80
yeas to IL nays; in the Houae by 1873 yeas to 81
nays
General Butler to the House. This is part of
Mr. Blaine's portrait of him: General Butter
had long been regarded as a powerful antagonist
at the bar and he fully maintained his reputa-
ton In the parliamentary conflicts in which he
became at once involved He exhibited an ex-
traordinary capacity for agitation. possessing in
a high degree what John Randolph described as
the talent for turbulence. His mind was never
at rest While not appearing to seek contro-
versles. he possessed singular power OF throw
stormier the scene the greater his apparent en-
joyment and the more striking the display Of
his peculiar ability. His readiness of repartee,
his great resources Of information. his famili-
logical and illogical discussion contributed to
make him not only prominent bus formidable IN
the House for many years"
The chapter which deals chiefly with govern
ment finances after the war and the funding of
the debt is of special interest. The impeach
ment of johnson, likewise, is the basis of strik
ing portion of the work. Of the close of the
trial Mr. Blaine says: "The great trial was over,
and the President retained his high Office. In
the ranks of the moro radical portion Of the Re
publican party there was an outbreak OF indig-
nation against the Republican Senators who had
voted Not guilty In the exaggerated denun-
citation caused by the anger and chagrin OF the
moment. great injustice was done to statesmen
was but one charge of any gravity against the
President-that OF violating the tenure of-office
act. But on this charge there was q very grave
difference of opinion among those equally COM
petent to decide. Let it be frankly admitted
that lawyers Of equal rank conscientiously be-
lieved in the Presidents guilt. This only proves
that there was ground for substantial and fun.
damental difference Of opinion, and that it could
not, therefore. with certainty be charged that
the President 'unnindful of the high duties of
his Office, did this act in violation OF tie Consti
tuition of the United States"
With the end of Johnsons stormy administra-
ton and the coming in of Grant, new era
dawned. The canvass of 1868 Is piciuresquely
described. Grants opponent. Horatio Seymour,
is thus sketched "No other leader commanded
SO large share Of the confidence and devotion
Of his party. No other equaled him in the art
of giving velvety touch to the coarsest and
most dangerous blows. or of presenting the work
of its adversaries in the most questionable guise.
1t was his habit to thread the mazes OF economic
and fiscal discussion. and he was never so elo
quent or apparently so contented as when he was
painting vivid picture Of the burdens under
which he imagined the country to be suffering,
or giving fanciful sketch Of what might have
been if Democratic rule had continued. From
the beginning Of the war he had illustrated the
highest accomplishments Of political oratory in
bewailng, like the tabled prophecies OF DID, the
coming woes-which never came"
With the new President came many new men
into public life, Mr.. George F. Hoar, for exam
pie, of whom Mr.. Blaine has much to say, and
this especially: I'm truth Mr.. Hoar is Puritan,
| modified by tho religious progress of two centu-
ries. but still Puritan-in manners, IN morals.
| in deep earnestness, in untiring energy. He is
independent without self assertion courageous
| without bravado, conscientious without pharisa
ism. In intellectual power, amply developed
and thoroughly trained. in force as debater,
both forensic and parliamentary, Mr. Foar is en-
titled to high rank. And his rank will steadily
increase, for his mind is OF that type which
broadens and strengthens by conflict in the
arena OF discussion" The era Of good feeling
liberal aud non partisan. though he recognized
an honorable allegiance to the Republican party,
which had placed him in power. Many of his
personal friends were among the Democrats, and
and the first few months of his administration
| promised peace and harmony throughout the
| country"
| An attempt to repeal the tenure of-ofice act
| was noteworthy feature Of this early period of
Grants administration. Of this act Grant said
| in his frat message: 'It could not have been
| fhn int nj IA fra of
when providing that appointments made by the
President should receive the consent of the Sen
ate, that the latter should have the power to re-
| tain ia Office persons placed there by federal
| appointment against the will of the President
The law is inconsistent with a faithful and
efficient administration Of the government
| What faith an executive put in officials
forced upon him, and those, too, whom he has
suspended for reason2 How will such officials
! be likely to serve an administration which they
| know does not trust themp In the debate on the
repeal of the act, Mr. Edmuuds said: Sowing
| to the peculiar circumstances that have
attended the las administration, it is
desirable that there saould be an i'm.
mediate and general removal Of the Office
! holders OF the country as a rule; and as an
agency for that removal, subject to our approval
when we meet again in confirmation of their
| successors, these bad men being put out, we are
willing to trust this executive with that dscre-
| ton" On this Mr.. Blaine comments: Coming
| from Senator of the United States, this decla-
| ration was regarded as extraordinary. The bad
men to whom Mr.. Edmunds referred were the
! appointees of President johnson, and every one
| OF them had been confirmed by the Senate of
| the United States when the Republicans had
| more than twothirds of the body. If these ap.
| pointees were bad men, why, it was pertinently
and forcbly asked by The aggrieved. did not Mr.
Edmunds submit proof of the fact TO his Republi-
| can associates and procure their rejection9 He
| knew, the accused men declared, as much about
vor hofor
| the Senate rs he knew now, when he sought, be-
hind the projection of his privilege, 10 brand
| them with infamy To permit them to be con-
| frmed in the silence and confidence Of an execu-
tive session, and then in open Senate, when their
| places were\ wanted for others. to describe them
as bad men, seemed to them a procedure not
to be explained the broad principles of states
manship. or even on the common law of fair deal
| ngs.' Mr.. Schurz also comes in for caustic re-
mark; OF him Mr. Blaine says: ut is somewhat