Year: 1868

me motion nor the recess was not made. t.e,.
tors that arises under the first article Is whether Mr.


stanton was the Secretary OF War. That he was
duly appointed BY and with the advice and consent


question. As the law then stood he was entitled to
hold the once until removed by authority Of the act
oct in fSh force At The ti%e s Of onss his removal @


But otherwise he was not removable at
Al without out the advice and q the Senate


and venture tosay before the Senate that there is
not one single word in the records Of the past history
said before, authorizes the removal. we viii see
whether that act authorized the removal In 1857.
pends upon the words Of the commission II that
were 80 would surrender the question: but deny
IT. The tenure Of Ofce depends upon the provisions
no vested power in the President % Of the Unit United
States over that subject He never had any power
With the senate, to which have RET referred red ia the
constitution, and the power expressly conferred by
legislation Of Congress- clearly the power which con-
changed the law Of 1885, Gentlemen % i have % made s
elaborate arguments to show that the Of 1858 did
Of the argument Was very sig sisncant as conessins s
that was competent for the Congress Of the United
States to put end to all this talk about the Tenure
0l once depending In any sense on the language OF
the commssion. Il depends exclusively upon the
PROVISIONS Of existing law The act Of 1857 repealed
protection Of all officers Heretofore appointed or COM
missoned by and with the advice and consent Of the
Senate and no Kind Of sophstry can evade the plain
between the ONCE and the officer. But no
puts an end to all such quibbling The once and
q the law ana beyond the reach Of the Executive
can gainsay that Mr.: Bingham referred TO the
Tenure Of once act and contlnued:-There is law
Is plain, clear distinct provision in the law that in
sucn case ana no Qther-to wit, during the recess,
ss' aSsS9sa s1a senate %s aS
oicer appointed with the advice and consent Of the
Senate hold their appointment within the provisions
Of % the BODY Of 9th the act and being within the pro;
is prohibited by the act from removing them, as he
is authorized by the act Of 1850 to make removals.
What nextf It Is attempted to be said here that from
the body OF TINS act the Secretaries appointed by Mr.
Lincoln v were exempted VINO, pray says that
Mr. % webster that exceptions, mi unless ' Clearly "
expressed In the law, are. never to be
application. That Is sound rule Of construction
Who says that the heads of departments appointed
body OF this actS why, the gentleman In the absence
of any further reason, undertook to quote speech
OF my learned and accomplished friend, the Sena-
tor from Ohio Mr. Sherman forgetting thst one line
Of that speech declares expressly or by necessary
intendment that the existing Secretaries and heads
OI departments were WltHlu tue OperaCOuB OF the
law. He says:-If q Secretary would not withdraw
and resign on the pOlltest suggestion from the new
President he would consent to his removal What
significance can be attached to these words, II
they don't mean this. To be sure, by this
law the President after all may not be permitted to
quests him to resign and II the Secretary refuses to
resign, would myself consent TO his removal. As
the matter then stood the Senate was, doubtless en-
trey justified before the country In coming to that
conclusion, for facts had not sufficiently disclosed
themselves then to show the necessity of the secre.
T Te s s 'G G %ss os
his character; It is understood now before all
the country and of the whole civilized world
powers of the government and TO betray the trust
committed to him by the people through their
This idea OF his being excepted from
dent himself In his message notified the Senate that
II he had supposed any member Of his Cabinet would
ofice against his WILL he would have removed him
without hesitation before 1t became law. He sup.
Again the President is Convicted on his Question 1w Ss
cause on the 18th OF August 1857, he issued an
order d suspending Edwin NJ stanton. Secretary q
the constitution was there authorizing the President
to suspend anybody for a day or an hours Has any.
n2 1t Is thing unheard Of altogether In the past
history OF the country. 1t never was authorized in
any way before the act Of the "a Of March,
this c0nessedly guilty man shall change front IN the
presence OF the Senate In order to cover up his vii





quotes the words OF the statute that had suspended
Mr.. Stanton but he quotes the other words Of the
revoked" ask you again. Senator's whether that
word ever occurred before In the executive papers OF
the United statesf II is the word Of the Tenure Of
ONCE act IL Ii too late FOR any man to come before
the Senate and say that the President of the United
States did not himself believe that the Secretary OF
was not excepted from Its provisions by the process
More than that, his letter TO the Secretary OF the
Of s ~ and eein nm sSt
had suspended Edwin N. stanton was further
recognition OF the fas on his part that Mr..
But that is not all. Ms osh counsel, who opened
the case Mr.. Curtis, declared that there are no ex-
%s E aan Ne n STnS Ss
That is his proposition. That being so, lie must
be within the body OF the statute: There is no escape
from 1t. There has been O further argument, how
ever, on this subject, namely, "that the President
did not intend to violate the law" II he believed
that Mr. Stanton was within the statute, and sent In
obedience TO the statute the reasons for his sspen-
sion to the Senate within twenty days and the evi-
dcnce on which he made the suspension it win
did not intend to violate the law; that he
did not think It obligatory on him. II not
why did he obey II In the hrst instance2 Why did he
exercise power under IL at all2 There is but one
answer which can be given tOit and that answer
Itself covers the President with ignomny, and shamc
will avoid the law; viii suspend the head OF de-
partment under its express authority for the nrst
suspension to the Senate together with the reasons
and the evidence upon which the suspension was
made. aud II the Senate concur In the suspension
VIII abide by the law. II the Senate nOnc0ncur In
the suspension l will defy the law and ning my
old rec3rd in their fsces and tell them that 1t =
my prerogatiVe TO sit IN Judgment judcially the
validity of the statute" That is the answer and 1t
Is all the answer that can be made to 1t by anybody.
Now, Senator's admit on this construction Of the
law that the President In the rst instance s himself
The Judge OF the sufciency Of the reasons and evil
dence on which he makes the suspension, and that
IL not to be held mpeachable for any honest errors
Df Judgment In coming 10 that conclusion. 1t would
be gross injustice to hold him tmpeachable for any
error OF judgment In coming 70 the conclusion
that the Secretary Of War was guilty Of INSIDE
meanor or crine In ONCE or that he had become In
capable, or that he was disqualified to hold
he ofice;, but the President IL responsible
n without any Of the reasons assigned by
he law, he, nevertheless availed himself Of the
power conferred under the Jaw TO suspend the secrc
AIRY Of War, although he knew that there was no
,oorabe excuse for charging that the Secretary Of
War guilty Of mlsdemeanors or crime, or that he
lad become In any way disqualified This II the very
,rme charged against him IN the eleventh artcle Of
impeachment that he did ettempt to VIC.
lct in that he attempted to prevent Edwin