Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-10
XIX. CONGRESS-.
EDMUNDS SPEAKS HIS PIECE.
pos,pn,ns Of the Debate on the Controversy
Between The President and the >ena'f'
WASHINGTON, March Q, 1886.


the urgency deficiency bill. Placed on
the calendar-Mr. Allison saying he
would call II up tomorrow.
At2 o'clock other business was cut
on by the unfinished business, being
the resolution reported by Mr.. Ed
mnnds from the Judiciary Committee
concerning the Duskin controversy be-
tween the Senate and the President
and Attorney General. As the reso.
lutionS were read by the chief Clerk
the most absolute silence prevailed on
the floor and in the galleries. The
galleries were crowded, many persons
being compelled to stand. This was
notably true Of the reserved galleries,
TO which admission is only permitted
by cards from senators, many gentle
men and ladies, though early, failing
10 find vacant seats.
Mr.. Edmunds began his remarks IN
rather low tone, but his voice soon
acquired it's usual full, clear, ringing
volume. Forty years had elapsed. he
said, since the last controversy of this
kind between the legislative and execu-
tive branches Of the Government had
occurred, and il had then been many
years since a similar occasion had
arisen. The instances in which there
has been eyinced the slightest reluc-
lance on the part either Of the EXecu-
tive or the heads Of the departments to
respond 20 the calls Of either house Of
Congress or Of committees for papers
in the possession either Of the Execu-
tive or Of the departments have been
very few indeed.
MIR. EdmundS then caused 10 be read
portions Of the statutes relating TO the
tenure Of office, recess, suspensions, and
creating the Department of Justice, and
documents covering the appointment
ard suspension Of DuSkin and the nomi-
nation Of his successor. as well as the
resolution Of the Senate calling for the
papers in the case and the Attorney
Generals reply.
The question, Mr.. Edmunds said,
was. What was the nature OF the nomi-
nation sent by the President to the
Senate? The President had not I'M
dertakon. in the face Of the statute for
bidding it. to remove Duskin from
office, but had suspended him. Duskin
still remained the attorney Of the United
states Tor Alabama. lie stood in the
attitude Of a military officer under al
rest As the President might place
u 4 81
General Sheridan under arrest, that
would not take General Sheridan out Of
the army. The act Of the President,
therefore, was not an attempt
to remove Dushin. but 10 withhold from
him the right to perform the functions
Of the office until the Judgment Of the
Senate could lie taken IN respect to his
removal and the appointment Of a sue
cessor. The President took pains, as
he should, in bis order Of suspension and
in his order Of resignation, to state
that both were subject to all the
laws applicable thereto, and the Sec
tions Of the Revised Statute, form.
ing part Of the Law of 1867
CO. declared IN explicit terms that
this man should not be removed except
by the advice and consent of the SEN
ate. When the nomination of Burnett
cane TO the Senate, therefore, Dushin
was the attorney Of the United State,
for Alabama. and the proposition was
that be should he removed by the ap-
pointment Of the gentleman select
Cd as his successor if it should
meet the approval Of the Senate.
Therefore the Senate, if it were even
Jury ana had to submit to the judg-
ment Of the President as Judge as to
what evidence should be laid befGfe it
connected with the case and its rele
vancy. it would have been relevant on
the very issue submitted by the Judge
to the Jury 10 know what was the con-
duct and management Of that office IN
the bands Of the person whom the
President asked the Senate to assist him
in displacng by new appointment.
That question had arisen before, not
between the President and Senate, but
IN the Cabinet councils of the Presi-
dent.
Mr. Edmunds had the Clerk read
long opinion Of Attorney-General Aker-
man. dated August I. 1870, relating to
the ease Of George II. Yeaman, COM
mis,ioned Minister to Copenhagen, IN
which Alderman. among other things,
says the word suspension" when ap-
pied TO an Office, never signiied the
final removal Of an officer. Also, the
opinion Of Attorncy-General DevenS.
dated October (, lo71, in which that
officer, among other things. says AN
Office the incumbent Of which is only
suspended Is IN no case placed in abey-
auce.'
1t would be seen, then, Mr.. Edmunds
continued, that IN spite OF sundry mis-
leading discussions IN the public press,
and in spite Of sundry inaccurate things
stated in the message of the President
q The nited States 10 this body, and
ia spite Of Sundry inaccurate views Of
the minority Of the Committee on Ju-
dietary as TO what this case Is that
We now have to consider, that as
well By law. as t has been placed on
the statute-boOks by the action Of all
Administrations that had existed
after the law was passed, and by
the action Of the President of the United
States himself in obedience to it, he has
invited the Senate Of the United States
70 agree with him in removing Ddskin
from Office by the appointment and
commissioning Of successor. That
being 30, the question was whether
Official papers in the Department Of
Justice bearing on the administration of
the officer we were asked 10 remove
should be sent to the Senate on It's call
There was but one answer TO that.
The relevancy Of he papers called for
must be a matter lor the decision Of the
Senate and nobody else.
Mr.. Edmunds did not think the
waImest AdministratiOn-man would
say that, taking it year in and year
out, decade in and decade out. century
in and century out, it was any part of
the duty Of the President or head Of a