The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-03-02

which they are supposed to relate. Are
all these, simply because they are pre-
served, to be considered official docu-
ments, and subject to the inspection of
the Senate? If not, who is to deter
mine which belong to this class?. Are
the motives and purposes of the Senate,
as they are day by day developed, such
| as would be satisfied with my selection?
Am to submit to theirs at the
risk of being charged with making
a suspension from Office upon evidence
which was not even on idered? Are
these papers to be regarded official be-
cause they have not only been pre-
sented, but preserved in public offices
Their nature and character remain the
same whether they are kept in the Elk
ecutive mansion or deposited in the
departments. There are no mysteries
of transmutation in departmental Gus
tody, nor is there magic in the unde-
| fined and sacred solemnity of the de-
partment files. II the presence of these
papers in the public offices is STUN
bling block in the way of the perform
ance of Senatorial duty, it can be easily
remedied. The papers and documents
which have been described derive no
official character from any Constitu-
tional, statutory or other requirement,
makng them nece 'sary to the perfor-
nance of the official duty o. the Exeeu-
tive. 1 think it will be found that in
subse Quent discussions of this question
there was generally, if not at all times.
a proposition pending to in seme way
curtail this 10 yer of the President by
| legislation, which furnishes evidence
that to limit such power it was sup
posed tCI be necessary to s lpp'e merit the
| Constitution by such legislation. The
first enactment of this description
was passed under the stress OF
the partisan hip and political
bit erness which eliminated in a
Presidents impeachment. This law
provided that Federal offices to which
it applied could only be suspended dur
ing a recess of the Senate, when shown
by evidence satisfactory to the Pres
ident to be guilty of misconduct in Of
flee or crime, or when incapable or
disqualified to perform their duties, and
that within twenty DAYS after the next
meeting of the Senate, it should be the
duty of the President to report to the
Senate such suspension with evidence
and reasons for his actions in the case
This statute. passed in 1867, when Con-
gress was Overwhelmingly and bitterly
opposed politically to the President,
even then it was thought neces-
sary by Congress to determine upon
the subjugation of the Executive to the
legislative will, and furnish itself law
for that purpose, instead of attempting
to reach the object intended by an in
vocation of any pretended Constitu-
tional rights. The law, which thus
found It's way into our statute book
was plain in its terms and its intent
needs no avoWal. If valid and now in
operation, it would justify the present
course of the Senate and command the
obedience of the Executive to its de-
mands. 1t may, however, be remarked
in passing, that under this law the Pre-
sident had the privilege of presenting to
the body which assumed to review his
Executive acts, his reasons therefor,
, instead of being excluded from explains
ton, or judged by papers found in the
! departments. Two years after the law
, OF 1867 was passed and within less than
. five weeks after the Inauguration of a
. President in political accord with both
branches of Congress, the sections OF
the act, regulating suspensions from
; office during the recess of the Senate,
! were entirely repealed, and in their
! D ace, we're substituted provisions which
} instead of limiting the cause of suspen-
: sion to misconduct, crime, disability or
disqualification, expressly permitted
such suspension by the President in his
discretion and completely abandoned
the requirement obliging him to repor,
: to the Senate evidence and reasons for
: his action. With these notifications
and with all branches of the government
in political harmony and in the alb
sence of any partisan incentive to cap
4 l. Loft
: by the amendment of 1869, was much
| less destructive of executive discretion
7 and vet the great General and patriotic
} citizen, who, on the 4th day of March
5 1869, assumed the duties of the chic
] Executive and for whose freer admins
tration of his high Office the most hate
= full restraints of the law of 1867 were or
: the 9Th day of April, 1869, removed
: mindful of his obligation to defend anC
Y protect every prerogative OF his grea
j trust, and apprehensive of the injur!
: threatened the public service in the con
e tinued operation of these statutes, ever
: in their modification, IN hi
: first message to Congress adduceC
i their repeal and set forth thei
+ unconstitutional character and hurtfu
g tendency. am unable to state whethe
a or not this recommendation for the re
S peal OF tneSe laws mas Deen slnce re
e peated. If it has not, the reason car
d be found in the experience which dem
a onstrated the fact that the necessitie!
e OF The political situation but rarely de
J. veloped their vicious character, and sC
, it happens that after an extension o
V nearly twenty years of almost innocu
t GUS disuetude, these laws are brough
i. forth, apparently, repealed, as well a
inrepealed, and put in the way OF TIT
|, executive, who is willing, if permitted. u
S attempt an imp ovement in the method
o of the administration. The constitu
L tionality of these avs is by no mean
Il admitted. But why should the pro
" visions of the repealed law, which re
d ouired a specific cause for suspension
o and report to the Senate of ''evidenc
and resson," be now in effect applied q
d the present Executive, instead OF tn.
: law afterwards passed and unrepeaied
e which distinctly permits suspension b.
IT the President in his discretion and care
e fully omits the requirement. that "eyl
d dence and reasons for his action in IN
2 case" shall be reported by the Senate
7 Requests and demands which,. 3,
% the score, have for nearly tnre
e months been presented TO the oi1eren