Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-11
Observation-Disclosures ii, 1886
Mr.. Eemunds's Speech.

dresses the Senate. therefore, "heh
he fails to make a strong speech, 1t is
because he has bad cause. TIE i'm
preston left upon our mind by his
speech Of Tuesday last is that he re-
lied rather upon an unconstitutional
statute than upon the Constitution itself
as the foundation upon which to build
his argument arraigning the President
for a dereliction Of duty.
Mr.. EDMUNDs claims that the Senate
is the proper judge as to the relevancy
of the papers it asks for; but this
claim is discredited by the fact that
when the President or Secretary Is
requested to furnish any papers, the
resolution asking for these papers usu-
ally contains the words, "if not in
compatible with the public interests"
Besides, in the very nature OF the case
the Executive must decide that the pa
pers he sends in are relevant. 1t would
be disrespectful to the Senate for him to
send to that body irrelevant papers.
But. if he is not allowed to judge, be
cannot exercise any discretion in the
matter. The words quoted were not in
the Senate's resolution asking Mr..
GARLAND for papers, but he put them
into his letter refusing to send the
papers.
Mr.. EDMUNDs says that all papers
on file in the departments are public
pspers; and assumes that all papers
deposited in the departments are on
file. But the logic of this argument is
not good. The President might deposit
private letters bearing on his appoint
ments in any one Of the departments,
or be might deposit them in the White
House. If he were to concede that by
depositing them in a department he
made them public records and rendered
them liable to inspection by senators or
other persons, all that he would have to
do in order TO circumyent Mr.. Ed
MUNDs would be to keep his letters in
his pocket, or burn them, or store thcr
away in the White House.
Mr.. EDMUNDs asked Mr.. SHERMAN
whether or not he considered letters
addressed to him as President pro tenn.
of the Senate private letters. Mr..
SHERMAN might have answered that
large number of letters so addressed
were not only private letters, but were
destroyed by him. If man signs a
negotiable note, John JONES, CASH
Ter Of the Jonesville Bank" the bank
is not thereby necessarily made respOn-
sible for its payment. So if JONES
addresses a scurIilOus letter to Mr..
CLEVELAND as President Of the United
States, or TO Mr.. SHERMAN as Presi-
dent pro tenn. Of the Senate, JONES
cannot thereby make his letter a pub
lie document and compel the Oh
ficer receiving it to send it to
the Senate under such a resolu-
ton as that Of Mr.. EDMUNDs. The
first recipient of the letter, must decide
for himself whether he will or will not
treat it as private letter. If the re-
cipient has not this right, then Congress
might pass law making it criminal
offence for him to destroy any letter
addressed to him in his official capacity.
The Senate would then be made the
dumpiDg.ground Of all the letters which
any scoundrel might choose to address
to the President or the head Of depart
ment. in his official capacity, "no matter
how vile or false these letters might
be. to use Mr.. EDMUNDs's own words.
We suppose that at least nine tenths
Of Mr.. CLEvELAND's private letters
are addressed to him as President Of
the United States. Therefore, accord
ing to Mr.. EDMUNDs, he has almost
no private letters. But this assump.
ton can never be made good law. Mr..
CLEVELAND knows private letter
when he sees it, and neither the Senate
nor the House Of Representatives, nor
both together, can deprive him Of the
right TO decide for himself which of his
letters are private and which public.
Having that right, he must necessarily
be permitted to judge for himself as 20
what letters, if any. he will send to
the Senate under such a resolution as
the one which evoked the present dis.
.cussion.
The root Of the matter is an uncon.
stiiutional' statute. On this statute,
We repeat, Mr. EDMuNDs based his
argument. This statute ough. to be
repealed, for il should not be con-
.ceded for one moment that the Senate
has anything to do with the removal
or the suspi nsion Of public officers.
The President only is responsible un.
der the Constitution for either the re-
moyal or the suspension of his subor-
dinstes. The Senate has voice in the
appointment Of officers, but none in
getting rid OF them. The President
must ask the Senate to confirm bis
nominations, but the Senate has no
right to interfere when be suspends or
removes an officer. lie is responsible
10 the people. The people elect him,
bat they do not elect the senators.
The Constitution requires the Presi- |