American politics (non-partisan) from the beginning to date

by Thomas V. Cooper; Hector T. Fenton

“First. That the order set out in the article for the removal of Mr. Stanton, if executed, would have been a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act.

“Second. That it was a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act.

“Third. That it was an intentional violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act.

“Fourth. That it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

“Fifth. That it was intended by the President to be so.

“Or, to draw all these into one sentence, which I hope may be intelligible and clear enough, I suppose the substance of this first article is that the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton was, and was intended to be, a violation of the Constitution of the United States. These are the allegations which it is necessary for the honorable managers to make out in order to support that article.”

Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that the case of Mr. Stanton did not come within the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, being expressly excepted by the proviso that Cabinet officers should hold their places during the term of the President by whom they were appointed, and for one month thereafter, unless removed by the consent of the Senate. Mr. Stanton was appointed by Mr. Lincoln, whose term of office came to an end by his death. He argued at length against the proposition that Mr. Johnson was merely serving out the remainder of Mr. Lincoln’s term. The object of this exception, he said, was evident. The Cabinet officers were to be “the immediate confidential assistants of the President, for whose acts he was to be responsible, and in whom he was expected to repose the gravest honor, trust, and confidence; therefore it was that this act has connected the tenure of office of these officers with that of the President by whom they were appointed.” Mr. Curtis gave a new interpretation to that clause in the Constitution which prescribes that the President “may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their several offices.” He understood that the word “their” included the President, so that he might call upon Cabinet officers for advice “relating to the duties of the office of these principal officers, or relating to the duties of the President himself.” This, at least, he affirmed, had been the practical interpretation put upon this clause from the beginning. To confirm his position as to the intent of the Tenure-of-Office Act in this respect, Mr. Curtis quoted from speeches made in both houses at the time when the act was passed. Thus, Senator Sherman said that the act, as passed—

“Would not prevent the present President from removing the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of State; and, if I supposed that either of these gentlemen was so wanting in manhood, in honor, as to hold his place after the politest intimation from the President of the United States that his services were no longer needed, I certainly, as a Senator, would consent to his removal at any time, and so would we all.”

Mr. Curtis proceeded to argue that there was really no removal of Mr. Stanton; he still held his place, and so there was “no case of removal within the statute, and, therefore, no case of violation by removal.” But, if the Senate should hold that the order for removal was, in effect, a removal, then, unless the Tenure-of-Office Act gave Mr. Stanton a tenure of office, this removal would not have been contrary to the provisions of this act. He proceeded to argue that there was room for grave doubt whether Mr. Stanton’s case came within the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and that the President, upon due consideration, and having taken the best advice within his power, considering that it did not, and acting accordingly, did not, even if he was mistaken, commit an act “so wilful and wrong that it can be justly and properly, and for the purposes of this prosecution, termed a high misdemeanor.” He argued at length that the view of the President was the correct one, and that “the Senate had nothing whatever to do with the removal of Mr. Stanton, whether the Senate was in session or not.”

Mr. Curtis then went on to urge that the President, being sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, must carry out any law, even though passed over his veto, except in cases where a law which he believed to be unconstitutional has cut off a power confided to him, and in regard to which he alone could make an issue which would bring the matter before a court, so as to cause “a judicial decision to come between the two branches of the Government, to see which of them is right.” This, said he, is what the President has done. This argument, in effect, was an answer to the first eight articles of impeachment.