Year: 1868

| THE CASE OF MR. STANTON.


On the 2lst day Of February last Mr.. Stanton was
de dcf0 and e Jre Secretary for the Department OF
War; The Presidents letter to Mr.. Stanton, of that
| date, Is evidence Of this fact:--


wAsnIssToH, mssSSsIy5 3 y. SS.SsBosi fsS X ,sss,


virtue e. OF ns sp and & s.hSr vested
are hereby removed from once as Secretary the
ppon receipt Of this '''A wi" terminate


oe az s 70 wso MAJOR s & GeSs s &
empowered to act az Secretary Of War % ire,"
custody and charge. Respectfully yoprs ,o,,vso
Hon. EDWIN NJ STANTON Washington, D. 6.


This letter is an admission not only that Mr.. STAN
ton was Secretary OF War on the 2lst OF February
1868 but also that the suspension OF that ocer Of
the 18th of August A. D. 1867, whether made under
the Tenure of once act not, was abrogated by
the action OF the Senate OF the 18th OF January isos
fully to the oice OF Secretary for the Department
OF War. On the 2lst day of February the
Senate was in session. There was then but
one constitutional way for the removal or Mr. stan
ton-a nomination by the President to the Senate or
| successor and his confirmation by that body. The
President attempted to remove Mr.. Stanton in way
not known to the constitution and IN violation
thereof by ssuing the said order for his removal In
the FIRST OF the articles il Is set forth that this order
was issued lin violation of the constitution and OF
the laws of the United States" II we show that he
has violated the constitution Of the United States
show also that he has violated his oath Of office which
pledged him 10 support the constitution Thus is the
guilt OF the President, under the constitution and
| upon admitted facts established beyond reasonable
doubt This view Is sufficient to Justify and require
|
Gle and TINS without any reference to the legislation
of the country and without reference to the consu
| whether the Secretary of War Is included within its
| provisions or not But intend in the course Of my
argument deal with all these questions II law and
to apply the law as 1t shall appear to the facts proved
or admitted. After referring TO the arguments OF the
| Presidents counsel he said:-The President is as
| guilty in contemplation of law as he would have been
If Mr.. Stanton had submitted to his demand and
tired from office Secretary for the Department of
| War.


| FILLING yACANrJFS IN OFFICE.


The second article of the constitution says:-''rhe
| President shall have power to Ill up all vacancies
that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by
granting commissions which shall expire at the end
of their next session." This clause grants power to
the President which he may exercise, but nothing by
construction implication If 1t be necessary and
proper that provision should be made for the suspen-
| sion or temporary removal OF officers who, in the
recess Of the Senate, have proved TO be incapable or
dishonest, or who in the judgment OF the President
are disqualified for the further discharge of the duties
OF their offices, 1t Ia clearly legislative right and
| duty, under the clause OF the constitution which
| authorizes Congress $40 make all laws necessary
| 10 carry into execution the foregoing powers
| vested in the government" The arguments
offered show that the President had not the
| power during the session of the Senate TO
| officer. Previous 10 the passage of the Tenure of
ONCE act he had removed hundreds of faithful and
| patriotic officers, 10 the great detriment OF the
public service, and followed by an immense loss of
| the public revenues. At the time of the passagesof
the act he was 80 far involved In his mad schemes
schemes of ambition and revenge-that il was IN his
| view impossible for him to retrace his steps. lie
|
plans TO undermine that law and secure to himself,
In defiance of the will Of Congress and Of the country
entire control OF the Officers IN the civil service and
in the army and the navy. He thus became gradu-
/ ally involved in an unlawful undertaking, from
which he could not retreat In the presence Of the
proceedings against MIN by the House of Represen-
tatves he had alternative but TO assert that under
the constitution power was vested In the President
exclusively, without the advice and consent OF the
Senate, to remove from ofllce every person in the
| service of the country. In the presence OF these
evils, which were then only partially realized, the
nnn nf ha n
once act barrier 10 their further progress This
| act thus far has proved Intellectual rs Il complete
r3medy and the President, by his answer to the
articles of impeachment, asserts his right to violate
1t altogether, and by an Interpretation of the const
tuition which is alike hostile 10 its letter and TO the
peace and welfare OF the country he assumes TO him
| self absolute and unqualified power over all the
| offices AMI officers OF the country The removal or
| Mr. Stanton, contrary to the constitution and the
| laws, Is the particular crime OF the President for
which we now demand his conviction. The extent
| the evil character and the dangerous nature Of the
claims by which he seeks to justify his conduct are
controlling considerations. by his conviction you
purify the government and restore 1t to its original
character. BY his acquittal you surrender the gov
ernment into the hands OF usurping and unscrupu-
claims for the corruption of every branch of the
public service apd the final overthrow of the public
| liberties.


The President, he went on to say, was not excused
by the fact that he had been advised by the Cabinet
| whose opinions in such cases were only those OF
private individuals. The Cabinet responded to his re-
quest for advice pretty much as Polonlus did to
|
thus referred to- The President had said that he
responsible to his Cabinet but they gave their AL
vice to him In fear and trembling. The President
was n man OF strong will, Of violent passions and
unlimited ambition, with capacity to employ men of
| attacks and destroys all who will not become his
tools but the military heroes deserved the thanks Of
the people for having witlstood his Establishments.
| THE CLAIMS OF PRESIDENTS.


| The speaker then went on to quote prccedents and
explain the act OF 1853: None Of the predecessors
OF Mr. johnson, from General Washington TO Mr..
Lincoln, although the act OF 1859 was In existence
during all that period, had ever ventured TO claim
that either under that act, by virtue Of the con-
stitution, the President OF the United states had
| power 10 remove a civ oificer during session OF
the Senate, without its consent and advice. The
utmost that can be said is that for the last forty
years 1t had been the practice Of the Executive to
remove civil Officers at pleasure during the recess OF
| I'm the absence Of any direct legislation upon the
subject, had become the common law Of the country
to that practice IL is also true for stronger reasons
that Mr.. Johnson was bound by his oath of office fo
adhere to the practice Of his predecessors In Other
| particulars, none OF whom had ever ventured to re-
move civil officer from his office during the session
OF the senate and appoint successor either perna
enter upon the discharge Of the duties of such Office


THE TENURE OF CIVIL OFFICES.


| After quoting from the several acts relating ia
vacancies, this gentleman said that the President and
counsel used great ingenuity In trying to give them
different meaning to what they really bore, and that
the President was guilty OF msdemeanor In the ap-
pointment OF Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary OF War


Te % Of Se FIRST section pSyf the c act


lating the tenure OF certain civil offices Is In these
| wOrda:--


Every person holding any civil Office to which he has been
the advice and consent OF the Senate
and every person shall hereafter be appointed any
Office, shall become duly qualified 10 act therein
and shall be entitled Office until shall
have like appointed and duly qualified,
| cept as herein otherwise provided


| Omitting for the moment to notice the exception,
there can bc doubt that this provision would have
| applied to the Secretary Of War, and to every other
civil officer under the governments nor can there be
any doubt that the removal OF Mr.. stanton during
scssi ion OF The Senate ~ misdemeanor by the law,
and punishable as under the sixth section of Tie act
unless The body OF the section quoted Is controlled
by the provso TO take the secretary OF War out Of
its grasp. The pr0vso Is in these wofds:-


That the Secretaries Of State OF the Treasury Of War
the Navy the Interior the Postmaster General and the
Attorney shall hold their offices respectively for
during the President by whom they


appointed, month thcreaiter subject 10 by
and with the advice and consent OF the Senate