The Portland daily press., 1886-12-17

Union was questionable. the measure was
debated at very great length both in the SEN
ate and House and its original draft was
greatly altered and amended before it was
enacted into law Grave doubt Of the con-
stitutionality of the measure was felt by
many of the ablest constitutional lawyers in
Senate at the time of its passage, and prob
ably had the exigency not been so great the
constitutional objections would have been
more strenuously urged. President John
son promptly vetoed the bill, as he did
almost all other bills which passed that ses-
sion, and the House and Senate as promptly
passed it over his veto. He obeyed
1t however ana never undertook to test its
constitutionality in the Supreme Court as
he might easily have done. The existing law
differs in some essential particulars from the
lawpasSed in President Johnson's time As
1t existed then no officer to which it applied
could be suspended at all during recess of
the Senate except it was shown by evidence
satisfactory to the President that he had been
guilty of misconduct in Office or crime. or
had become incapable or legally disqualified
to perform the duties of his office. The
President was obliged also to send to the
Senate the reasons for the suspension. If
the Senate refused to assent to the suspen-
sion and to the new appointment the sus-
pended officer was reinstated. The Presi-
dent, however, as soon as the Senate adj
journed could again suspend the officer for
any of the above reasons and appoint some
one to fill the office until the Senate again
| met.
T,,1 1.,rt hi
ton, some important notifications were
made. The part Of the law which compelled
| the President to send to the Senate his rea-
| sons for a suspension was repealed, and
| the clause that forbade suspension except
for crime or incapacity or legal disqualified
ton was modified so as to allow the President
sin his discretion" to suspend any civil Off
Ger appointed by and with the advice and
consent Of the Senate during the recess of
the Senate. That is to say while under the
law as it was passed in 1867, the President
could suspend only in case crime or incapaci-
| ty was proven by evidence, under the law as
modified in 1869 he could suspend if he saw
fit when neither incapacity nor crime existed.
President Grant was very anxious to have
the entire law repealed and in his message
to Congress in December, 1869, he expressed
his views in this language:
1t could not have been the intention Of the
| trainers of the constitution when providing that
| appointments made by the President should re-
| ceiye the consent OF the Senate, that the latter
should have the power to retain in Office persons
placed there by federal appointment against the
| will of the President. The law is Inconsistent
with faithful aud efficient administration of the
| government. What faith can an executive put in
officials forced upon him, and those, too, whom
| he suspended for reason? How Will such officials
be likely 10 serve an administration which they
know does not trust them?
The House, following this suggestion
passed a bill repeating the law by vote OF
159 to %, but the Senate refused to concur,
Since then several other attempts have been
made to get rid of the law, but the Senate
has always chung to it. There can be
scarcely doubt, however, but that it will
be repealed at this session.
Since the law was modified in 1869 it has
practically amounted to nothing. There has
not been an instance since its passage where
an officer suspended has got back into his
Office. All the suspensions have been prac-
tically removals, though called by another
name. Under the circumstances that existed
in Johnson's administration the law was
doubtless necessary and very likely saved
the country from much harm. That ext
gency long since passed away and is not
likely to be repeated. The law, too, as has
been seen, has been so modified that
sufficient to cope with such an exgency
should it arise. The remainder of it, there
4 fore, might as well go.