The Louisiana Democrat., 1886-03-03
ANOTHER THING
Where Prominent Republicans Stood In
1869 on the Question of Executive


ANOTHER THING
where Prominent Republicans Stood in
1869 on the Question of Executive
Power"
Judging from Washington dis
patches, one of the most vociferous and
thorough-going of Mr.. Edmunds' lieu
tenants in the contest of the Senate
with the President is General John
Alexander Logan, the son of thunder
from Illinois, who never willingly lets
slip chance to lift up his voice and
cry aloud. To-day, General Logan is
one of the most strenuous upholders of
the right of the Senate to investigate
the Presidents reasons for suspending
Republican Office holders, and in inter-
views with numerous correspondents
he maRifests a disposition to insist on
all the rights which an extreme in
depreciation of the provisions of the
Tenure-of-O Office act confer upon the
Senate. . ~
1t was not always thus. In 1869,
when the Tenure-of-Of1ice act was
pending, General Logan was member
of the House, and his views upon the
propriety of the Senatorial prerogatives
were exactly opposite to those which
he holds now. 49,
At that time General Logan fought
in his tiercest manner the passage OF
the present Tenure-of-O Office act, and in
his most stentorian tones demanded its
abolition. His ideas upon the necessity
Of total change in the incumbency Of
the offices were embodied in the follow
ing resolution, which he sent to the
Speakers desk and asked to have
passed: H' ''
That all civil offices, except those OF Judges
Of the United States Courts that were filled by
States by and with the consent Of the Senate,
before the 4th of March, 1853, shall be vacant
on the 3Oth day of June, 1869.
He denounced in round terms the
power which the present Tenure-of-
Office law could give the Senate.
Among other things he said:
the executive branch of this Government, SO
far as reappointing suspended officers is con-
cerned. - It tthe Tenure. of Office bill
then pending) doubly gives them the power
nate branches of the Government in reference
to patronage. I do not claim that this is q
contest for patronage, but it is struggle fol
power on the part of the Senate, and nothing
(the Tenure.of- Office act of 1852 for which the
Tenu re. Of Office act now in force and then
pending is substituted to be constitutional
although have argued in favor OF its cOnst1
1><,lf1 nvNl h~ltn
now that it was passed for purpose; not be
| cause it was demanded by the constitution
but because there was necessity for it tht
Republican necessity of bull-ragging Andrew
ate are determined, seeing how we'll they cal
| hold that power in their hands. never to givt
| it up again for fear that if they give it VI
now you will never give 1t back into thei
! hands again.
General Logan, in the last part o
the foregoing quotation, 'gave" th'
secret of the passage of the prcsen
Tenure-of- Office act "away." Th,
Republican representatives were al
| most unanimous in favor of repeal
and, of course, the Democratic repre-
sentatiyes were to man. So wer'
Sherman, Morton, Yates and others 0
the Senators. But Trumbull, Edmund
and Conkling were strenuous for main
tanning ''the dignity of the Senate,
and holding on to all the power the.
had got into their hands; and the,
were able to control a majority of tn
Senators by promising that the Law
would not be enforced while Republic
an Presidents should continue to occu
py the White House. That promis
was kept. No attempt was made t.
enforce the law until Mr.. Cleveland be
came President.
Messrs, Hoar, Dawes, Cullom, Hale
Conger and Allison were members o
the House with Logan and arenow Re
publican Senators with him. The
acquiesced in his remarks and vote'
with him in favor of repeal. Holdin!
such opinions in 1869, which, by tn
way, are the simple truth, how do Gen
eral Logan and the others above nance
Justify their present course? An eS
planation is in order if they have on
to give.
The doctrine which Senator Sherma
asserted to be true in 1869-that all tn
important offices ought to be in tn
hands of members of the party in powe
is true now. The President has Gel
tainly been moderate in maxim
changes, and there is no tenable groun
for maintaining that any greater nc
cessity exists for the enforcement of tn
Tenure-of- Office act than existed then
when all these gentlemen were in favo
of abolishing it, because it might b
made to hamper the President in tn
exercise of the executive power whic
rightfully belonged to him. The fol
lowing was the language of one of tn
leaders of the Republicans of the Hous
in 1869, which General Logan, Senator
Hoar and Dawes and the rest indorseC
We have now before us II proposition t
clOtho the Senate with power to control tt
appointments made BY the Executive. Nov
hold that it is against the principles of tn
Government that its executive officer shall
troll independent Of the officers to do tn,
work. ; Why do prefer the Execl
tive to the Senate! The Executive is respo
sible. ANY officer can be called before hi
and the Executive can say to him: why {
you do this?" Any representative of the pc
pie can call an unworthy officer to accou
before the President But the Senate 81
there, one Senator being shield for anothe
You go to Senator and say: why was n
this man turned out?" The answer is: 20
Senator is able to make the same answer
such an inquiry. You can hold no man r
sponsible.
By the constitution, the Senate b:
the right to advise and consent, or
~