The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-09

Whether this was In the nature OF an
opinion to the President, or whether it
was discussed in Cabinet, or whether
it was stated unoflicialy to Democratic
Senators who had asked him for his views on tn Q
subject cannot be learned Ii Mr.. Garland has
been correctly reported in regard to the opinion
that the suspended officials resume Office by vir-
tue of the Senate's having failed to act on their
successors, be is only voicing the opinion held by
many Senators, both Republicans and Demo
Gratis, that suspensions are only temporary and
not permanent But many Democratic Sena-
tors believe that the tenure of-ofice act Is I'M
constitutional, and will doubtless be surprised
when they hear that the Attorney-genefal has
admitted its soundness. The Supreme Court OF
the United States has once passed upon the
right to a suspended official resuming his Office
in case Of non action by the Senate on his sue
cessor lin the case of a Tennessee postmaster).
and decided that the suspension only acts until
the end of the session. Chief-justce Waite de-
livered the decision, and it was concurred in by
the full bench.
Why the Encouragement holds that the
President cannot reinstate men who were desg-
mated to act during the suspension of official
is not known. 1t will be noticed that the Attor-
ney general holds that this inhibition applies
only in cases of non-action. Where men have
been rejected by the Senate their names have
been sent in again at the same session of the
Senate. General jackson did it, and so did
Grant. Other Presidents have done the same
thing.
This alleged opinion OF the Attorney general
gains additional interest at this time because an
outline of Senator Edmunds's argument on the
right of the Senate to demand papers has been
obtained. Mr.. Edmunds, it is said will hold
that the act of suspension is merely temporary
one and does not absolutely deprive the incum
bent of his Office. Arguing from that standpoint,
he will endeavor to show that before the Senate
can correctly determine whether the suspended
man can be reiustated or dismissed from the
public service, the Senate must know the causes
of the suspension, so as to be in position to de-
eide whether the country would be best served
by the dismissal or confirmation. Consequently
it stands to reason, if Mr.. GarlaDds position is,
sound-namely: that the designated man cannot
be again designated by the President at the end
of the session-it would strengthen the Edmunds
line of policy, as he could show Republican SEN
ators that, by refusing to act on nominations, the
President would in every suspended case, have
to select new men, which would tend to greatly
embarrass the administration.
A Democratic Senator, when told of the opin-
ion attributed to the Attorney general, said he
hardly knew what to make of it. If 1t was true
it would produce bad state of affairs, as the
men now acting in the place of suspended Off
Gals would be terribly mad at having to 60 out
of Office, while there would be another outpour-
ing of ofice-seekers anxious for the places. 1t
would be bad, said he, as it the 4th of last
March, when Democrats came here and thought
they could have Offices for the asking. Garland
himself, when called on by reporter refused to
talk