OCR Interpretation

The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, June 01, 1868, Image 1

Image and text provided by Maine State Library

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016025/1868-06-01/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

Established June 23,1862. Vol. 7. PORTLAND, MONDAY MORNING, JUNE 1, 1868 Terms $8.00 per annum,, in advance.
every day, (Sunday excepted,) at No. 1 Printers'
Exchange, Exchange Street, Portland.
N. A. FOSTER, Proprietor.
Terms Eight Dollars a year in advance.
LJT" Single copies 4 cents.
THE MAINE STATE PRESS, is published at tlie
same place every Thursday morning at $2.00 a year,
nvariably in advance.
Rates of Advertising.—One inch ot space, tn
length ot column, constitutes a “square.”
$1.50 per square daily first week. 75 cents ]>er
week after; three insertions, or less, $1.00; continu
ng every other day after first week, 50 cents.
Half square, three insertions or less, 75 cents: one
week, $1.00; 50 cents per week alter.
L’nde head of “Amusements,” $2.00 per square
per week; three insertions or less, $1.50.
Special Notices, fl.25 per square for the first
insertion, and 25 cents per square lor each subse
quent insertion.
Advertisements inserted in the “Ms ike Statu
Press” (which has a large circulation in every part
ot the State) tor $1.00 per square lor first insertion
and 50 cents per square for each subsequent inser
Botmell & Pelham,.
To Turtles about to Build.
Plans, Specifications aud Estimates made, and
Buildings Superintended by
GEO. Its. PELHAM, Architect.
Office Canal National Bank Building, Middle st.
Portland, April 20, 180S. d2m
WOODMAN, true & CO,
Importers ami Dealers in
Dry Goods, Woolens,
^Vucl Small Wares,
Coruer of Middle and Pearl Streets,
Agents ‘or Maine for tlic Washington Manu
facturing Co’s CYo</i Button Hole Paper Collars and
Also Agents for Singers’ Sewing Machines, and
Sanborn’s Patent Steam Fire Proot Sale.-.
April 4tli-d4m
Hankers and Merchants,
114 Slate Street, ICoHtou.
don and Paris, available in all parts of Europe.
LttAAH OF s'l' 1*1 R I,Itsinatle lo 111t't'
rhiinl. > pon favorable- u-rm..
received, subject to draft at sight, and interest
DVANCES made on Consignments to Liver
pool and London. # Ieb27d6m
Proprietors of Greenwood Mill,
DEALERS in Yellow Pine Timber and Ship
Stock. Orders solicited.
References—R. P. Buck & Co., New York;
Win. McUilvery. Esq., Se.arsport; Ryan & Davis,
Portland^ mar26dtl
HO Hortli St., Boston,
Bes Retined Bar Iron, Tin Plates,
Hoops, Bands and Scrolls, Terne Plates for Rooting,
Plate, Angle and T Iron, Eng. and American Sheet
Hi vet Iron, Swarf Iron, Iron,
Balt Lon, Spike iron, Russia and R G Sheet Iron
Ship and Railroad Spikes, Imitation and French Pol
Oval and halt round Iron, ished Sheet Iron,
Shoe Shapes, Horse Nails, Galvanized Sheet Iron,
Norway and Swedes Iron Sheet Copper and Zinc.
ami Shapes, Banca, Straits & Eng Tin.
N orway N ail Rods, Copper Bottoms and Brass
Steel cl every description, Kettles,
Tinmen's turnish’g goods, Iron Wire, &c., &c.
Also agents for the sale ot
Saylor di Co. ’s Cast Steel,
Muntz’s Yellow Metal Sheathing:,
February 18. dGm
Successors to William H. Elliott wholesale dealers in
Watclies &, Jewelry,
Silver Elated Ware, Ac.,
H^The best place in the city to buy Plated and
Oreidc Jewelry.
April 6, 1868.' d2iu
Have this day removed to the new and spacious store
erected tor them
sincl OO Middle »t..
On the Old Site occupied by them previous to the
great tire.
Portland, Much 16. tf
Manufacturers of and Dealers in
Coflees and Spices,
Cor. Commercial and Park Streets.
N. B,—Our Coffee is prepared by the oldest and
most experienced Roaster in the city.
Orders received from all parts ot the State will be
promptly executed and satisfaction guaranteed.
March 31, 1868. dit
Counsellor and Attorney at Law,
And Solicitor in Bankruptcy, &
*:t Wall direct, ... New VorU City.
/•Commissioner for Maine and Massachusetts.
Jan. 29dll'
And Ship Joiner.
t» •Circular and Jig Sawing done with despatch.
Mouldings of all kinds, Doors, Sash and Blinds made
nr furnished to order.
.'MS f omiuereial Ml , (foot of Park Nt.,)
Portland, Maine, au29dtt
Cordage Mauulacturers,
Including Full Gangs, fishermen's Hawsers, Bolt
Rope, Point Rope, Trawl Warp, Lath Yarn,&c.
Orders solicited. janBdOm
F a tiSCO FA I ATI’] IS.
>rti*e al the Drug Store of Messra. A. G. Sclilotter
beck & Co.,
t«»:s 8*1,Foriluuri, ITIe,
j al'Jdtl One door above Brown.
AUorfsey* k Counsellor# at Law,
Office Wo. 30 Exchange Street,
Jo.-ejb Howard, jyy Nathan Cleaves.
Commission Merchants !
1«1 Broad street,
Samuel Freeman, I
E. I>. Appleton. ) NEW YORK.
^"Particular attention given o the purchasing
of Flour and (train.
liilerouccs—David Keazer, Esq , E. McKenney &
(’o. W. & *R. Millikeu, J. B. Carroll, Em|.. T. H.
We-11in & Co. __jnnelldtf
Manufacturers and dealers In
titoves, Ranges X Furnaces,
Can be found in their
NKW RCj*iVIl«« ON I.i»i Hr.,
(Opposite the Market.)
W nero they will he pleased to see all their former
Just oners and receive orders as usual. auglTdtf n
Coffins, CSaskets, Desks,
Show Cases and Office Furniture,
Of Ever, Description,
Made h orn the best material and bv EXPERIENCED
_»,:Pllsdll_ No. 10CrossSt.,p0rU»nd, Me.
JN«>. :S1 .Free Street.
Upholstering, Furniture, Repairing,
VaruiMhing and Folifthing done at abort
nolit e, by
W. l\ Fit EE MAN.
Mar 21-dtt
Stucco and Mastic Workers,
No 'Al Union Ml reel,.■■orlluud, Me.
tZV Coloring, Whitening, and dob Work prompt
y attnnded to. apr3d3m
Nos. 16 and IS Portland Street.
B3T* Market and Express Wagons constantly on
hand. may21dlm
Commission Merchants,
And Dealers in
Produce,Groceries, Ship Stores, &e.
No. 10 Market Street, Portland.
firff*Consignnient8 promptly andiaith ully attend
ed to. may20-dlm
It. R. York, - L. T. Lixcoln.
SPUijrG Titvsni:
Jobbers and Wholesale Dealers in
Fancy Dry Goods !
I* loves, Hosiery, Cornels, Vnrus, N nm 11
Ware*, Trimmings, Arc.
Portland, me. marGdtf
Wholesale Commission Dealer in
Lime, dement and Plaster,
‘t.‘t Commercial St.,
May 2-dtf
G-as and Steam Fitters !
No. 21 Union Nireet, Portland.
GSr* Houses fitted with Pipes lor Gas, sham or
Water, in a workmanlike manner, and satisfaction
warranted. mayl dtt
Prompt attention paid to all kifulsof .lobbing
in our line. apr22dtf
State Agent
Union Mutual Life insurance Co.,
No, 1 Nturdivnut Block,(IOOExchange Nt.
I^Ofiiee Hours 11 to 12 A. M. and 3 to 4 P. M.
April 3-d&wtf
Bankers and Brokers,
15 Exchange Street,
35.000 Portl’dbnilding loan Bonds
25.000 Portland Municipal “
25.000 Portland aid of it. Bd. “
20.000 Toivn of Dexter “
20.000 Chicago 7 pr. ct. school “
10.000 St. Louis Currency 6s “
Government Bonds!
7.30s Exchanged for
On the Most Favorable Terms.
May 11-dim
Fashionable Millinery
Dress Making,
No. 163 Middle Ntreet, Portland, Me.
March 9, 18G8. dti
Millinery ami Straw
IV o. IS Milk Street,
will find it to their advantage to examine oir stock
before purchasing elsewhere.
3tS=“ Orders carefully and prompt
ly filed.
T. T. Okdway. C. V. Boswobth.
April 23,18t>8. d6w (Transcript copy.
W. T. BROWN & CO.,
General Commission Merchants,
No. no l-'l Commercial Street,
(Thomas Block,)
Willard T. Brown, I PrtRTI ANn
Walter H. Brown, ) porlland.
Sole Wholesale Agents for the Boston Match Co.
(or Maine. By permission refer to Dana & Co., J.
W. Perkins & Co., Josiah H. Drummond, Burgess,
Fobes & Co. juneMtf
No. 31S Coii{;rOKK st.,
Manufacturer aud Proprietor of
Currier’s Patent Bell for Hotels,
Where one Bell is made toansw'er for any number
ot rooms. Also Speaking Tubes, Door Bells, Gong
Bells, Dining R< om Bells to ring with the loot, and
Bells tubed back of plastering. Agent for
Taylor’s Patent Crank Door Bell,
Where no wires are used. Houses, Hotels and
Steamboats fitted at short notice. Specimens ot my
work can be seen in some of principal Hotels in
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Mar 26-dlwthen cod2m
agg^Dr. W. R. Johnson,
Office No. 13 1-i Free Street,
Second House from H. H. Hay’s Apothecary Store.
tlier administered when desired and thought
advisable. jy22eodtt
Opposite Peering Hall.
A well selected stock for
Merchant Tailoring Use 11
consisting of
French, C*erman,
and American Tricot*,
Doeskin and Caasiniere,
Adapted for the season. We guarantee to cut and
make g ods ns good as anybody, and PRICES LOW
ER. Please call and examine.
may8(12m 28 Market Square, Portland, Me.
All kinds of Plain and Fancy Boxes.
ITO Wn»l.i„Klon Ml., Boston.
Orders respectfully solicited.
Promptness and Satisfaction Warranted.
May 11-dlm
W ar Department,
Washington, D. C'., March 2,1868.
AN Army Medlca1 Board, to consist ot Surgeon
J. B. Brown, Brevet Brig. Gen’l U.S. A. Sur
geon H. R. Wirtz, Brevt Lieut. Col. U. S. A.,’ Sur
geon John Moore, Brevet Col. U.S. A. and As
sistant Surgeon A. A. Woodliull, Brevet Lieut. Col.,
U. S. A., will meet in New York City on the 1st ot
May next, tor the examination ot Assistant Surgeons,
U. 8. Army, for promotion, and ot candidates tor
admission into the Medical Stall ot the U. S. Army.
Applicants mustbe between 21 ami 30 years of age,
physically sound, and graduates of a regular medi
cal college
Applications tor permission to appear before the
Board should be addressed to tie Surgeon General,
U. 8. Army, and must state the full name, residence,
and date and plate of birth ot the candidate.
Testimonials as to character ami qualifications
must fe furnished. If the applicant lias been in the
medical service of the Army during the late War,
the fact should he stated, together with his former
rank, and date and place of service, amt testimoni
al* from officers with whom he has served should
also be forwarded.
No allowance is made for the expenses ot persons
undergoing examination, as it is an imlispensible
prerequisite to appointment. The number of vacan
cies now existing in (lie Medical Corps of the Army
is thirty-nine.
Surgeon General, U. S. A.
Mar 6—tilljune st.
Medical Notice.
G. it. CHADWICK, M. D., will devote special at
tent ion to Diaea es ot tbe Eye. No. 3011 ConcreiSSt
Office hours trom 11 A. M. to 1 P. M.
May tt
TI1E TIME IS COMING when hundreds will reerret, as many now do,
that they DID NOT insure with the Great
Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Tlie Pioneer Ijife Company of this Country, - - - Established iu 1843.
Assets nearly $26,000,000 all Gash.
SECURITY is the paramount consideration in Life Insurance•
This Company being purely mutual, it has NO stockholders, (like some others,) who receive large
dividends and are thus consuming the earnings, which should go to the assured.
It* History of lwTenty-flve years is best told by the twenty-live hundred families of deceased members
who have received nearly ten millions ot dollars in return lor the premiums paid in annual sums, often in
amount insignificant, but in beneficial results incalculable in value.
It is the Cheapest Company to insure with, and exceeds all others on the following points:
In Security Olleied ; In tyc; Amount limu red; Assets; In Dividends; IVumberof
Policy Holder*; Low Kate of tgxpcnscs and Claims, Ac.
The effect of all t hese lavorable conditions has been that in the past twenty-three years the company has
paid to its Policy-Holders In dividends the large sum of
$10,176,338 in Cash, j to their Policies of about $22,000,000
The*c Dividend* were larger, both in amount ami in proportion to premiums paid, than those
ever declared by any other Life Insurance Company.
The phrase Annual Dividends in this Company means dividends made annually fr«m the start.
on the first and every subsequent premium; audnot at the expiration of three, four or five years and
only then annually. It also means that the dividends are available immediately to increase the insurance,
or as CASH in reduction of the premium of the current year; and not merely to cancel notes and accrued
interest on premiums three, tour, or five years old. These dividends being added to the sum insuied give
such results us are sli »wn in the following examples, bv which it will be seen the Policies referred to have
nearly doubled in amount, the additions being from 30 ro 50 per cent, more than the premiums paid there
on. The following are cases of Policies now in torce at this Agency:
No. o Amount Premiums Amount ot Ain't of Policy Ain’t ot dividends
Policy. insured. paid. Dividends. and Dividends. over payments.
518 $3,500 $2,452.45 $2,947.57 $6,447.57 $495.12
636 500 291 60 403.54 • 903 54 111.94
4,478 1,000 562 00 741.61 1,741.61 179.61
7,767 8.000 3.816.89 5,483.23 13,483.23 1,666.34
7,662 5.000 2,771.00 3.510.12 8,510.12 739.12
10 793 3.000 1,142.40 1,726.90 4,726 90 584,50
12.410 1,500 442,55 731.65 2,231.65 289.10
We invite our friends to call and see the Policies for themselves.
The Policies ofiliis Company' are Non Forfeiting in the true sense ot the term and always have a
cash VALUE, on suriender, while with some other Companies it is not so.
Eiulowmcnl Folicic* payable at any given age, or with Five or Ten ITcar payments issued on
more favorable terms than by any other Company.
All Folicic* Non-Forfeiting, in the true sense of the term.
The lntere*t alone, so tar received by this Company the past years on its .invested funds, considera
1 ly exceeds tie amount of Claims by Death,—the amount paid for claims by Death being $914,537$ the
interest on investments in 1867 bcdiig $1,915,701, showtng an excess of $400,000* Noother Compa
ny cau show such results.
Vouug Hen especially are requested to exanine the system and workings of this Great Company, which
are worthy 1 he attention ot all who propose to insure; and none should Insure withoui first examining
the advantages afforded over all the various plans presented by the small Companies now in the field, some
of w hose features will not bear a very close scrutluv.
Many of the Policy holdtrs of this Company have recently largely increased their insurance, for the rea
son they find it the H* st Investment they now have.
We respecttullv invite all who are proposing insurance to call on us before completing arrangements, and
those who are desirous ot information as to the condition ol the various Life Companies, may have access to
the Reports ot the Insurance Commissioueers of tfie different States, which give the most important facts,
necessary for the public to have ou the subject by calling at our office,
40 1-3 Exehange Street.
W. D. LITTLE & CO., Agents
May 14-dtf
Dividend being Paid in 1868—100 per cent.
Life Insurance Company!
Newark, IV. .T.
Organized, 1845. - - - Charter Perpetual.
Assets Over $15,000,000.
Annual Income over $6,000*000.
Annual Dividends 50 per et. in Three Years.
Dividends Declared to Members, over $7,000,000.
This Company is STRICTLY MUTU AL,—\t has no “Ceech-like
Stockholder s”—pays no bonuses to officers, nor immoderate commissions
to Agents.
Care in the selection of risks, and economy in expenditure, are the
distinguishing features of its management.
UT-’Kvery desirable or advantageous feature, new or old, has either
been introduced or adopted by this Company.
Dividends can remain with the Company to accumulate and be paid
with the policy. After a few years it will thus become self sustaining.
It has always made Annual Dividends.
It never hazards principal for interests, and has never lost a dollar
from investments.
It expenses of management have been for a series of years lower, while
its ratio of surplus has been and still is, proportionality larger, than any
oilier Company; from which it necessarily and mathematically follows:
1 st—That this Company having the largest ratio of surplus affords
The Greatest Safety and Security to its Members.
2d—That as it consumes the least of its income in running expenses,
The Cheapest Company to Insure in!
To every man who invests his money in Life Insurance—be it much
or little—these considerations are of paramount and vital importance,
and no w'here else but in Life Insurance would they ever be disregarded.
All persons desiring reliable and accurate information concerning
the standing and condition of the various Life Insurance Companies of
this Country, are invited to call at my Office, where access to all the Re
ports of the Insurance Commissioners, and every possible facility for ob
taining such information as will stand the test of coming years will be
cheerfully and freely furnished.
Office 72 Exchange Street, Boyd's Block.
For Maine, New Hampshire and New Brunswick.
April 23-dtf
Remember !
Keeps full lines of Hosiery & Gloves
Remember !
Keeps Hoop Skirts & Corsets.
Remember !
Keeps Parasols and Sun Umbrellas.
Remember !
Keeps all kinds of Yankee Notions.
Keeps Laces & Embroideries.
Prices are ‘Household Words'
270 Congress Street.
Buys his goods from importers and manufactur
er, thereby saving one profit. This coupled
with light expenses enables him to undersell any
store in the State. Aill goods marked in plain fig
ures;—we ignore the Jew system, and sell at
Proprietor of ‘The Mart.’
April 28-dtf
Travelers in Europe,
Issued upon London and Paris,
Available in all the cities ot Europe and the East, by
Page, Richardson & Co.,
feb27dCm 114 Stale *«., Bouton.
Cleansed and Repaired
BY WILLIAM BROWN, formerly at 91 Federal
street, is now located at his new store No 04 Fed
eral st, a tew doors below Lime street, will attend
to his usual business of Cleansing and Repairing
Clothing ot all kinds with his usual promptness.
fcy~Secoin I -band Clothing for sale at fair prices,
Jan 8—eodt.f
Horse for Sale.
A good Gentleman’s driving Horse.
7]—rf“VSeven years old tins spring, and can road
twelve miles au hour. Stands H hands
i l / i i.L.hj weighs about nine hundred and fit
tv. Color, Sorrel. A very handsome and proud
driver. Enquire of
Cor. Union and Middle St, Portland.
May 1-dtf ___
A FULL supply of Tents, of all sizes, for sale
store Commercial Street, head ot Widgery’a
Forest City Lead Company
are manufacturing and selling
Paints of all Kinds,
- AT -
Nos. 184 and 186 Fore Street,
- AT -
By“Tliey pan supply dry painters’ sand and ground
slate for patent roofing.
C. C. WHITNEY, Agent.
April 30. dim
Tilton Jb McFarland,
Desire to call tlie attention to the fact that more than
4 O
Of their Safes t;ave AMPLE PROTECTION Id the
late fire. Parties desiring a
At a MODERATE PRICE,-will please call on
Middle Street, Portland.
Or at HO Mmlbury Street, ISoaton.
BSr*Second-hand Safes taken in exchange for sale.
Parties desiring Sanborn's Steam improvement at
tached to Tilton & McFarland’s Safes, can order of
Finery, Waterhouso & Co.
Jan 15—SNlstw in each m os-ad v remainder of time
The Cooking Miracle of the Age
Steam Oooking Apparatus.
Cheap, Simple, Economical!
A DINNER COOKED lor twenty persons over
ONE hole of the Stove. Can be put. on any
Stove or Range ready for instant use.
Water changed to a delicious Soup by distillation.
Leaves the entire house free from offensive odors in
cooking. Its results astonish all who try it.
IST'Seud tor a Circular.
For Hale) an also Town and County
Rights in the Miate. by
juiin cousens,
lan 3-dtf Kennebunk. Me.
$1.68 Per Foot I
May 8-dtf _
Electro Medical Instruments.
Magnetic and Galvanic Batteries,
- AND -
Philosophical Instruments !
the best in use tor families and institutions. For
sale by LOWELL & SEN TER.
may4d6m 04 Exchange Street.
POltl'I.AIV U.
Mond&y Morning, Juna I, 1868.
National Uuion Republican Nominations.
Impeachment of the President.
In the Senate of the United States, May 11,1868.
The President is impeached by the House
of Representatives oi high crimes and misde
meanors, in that on 21st of February last he
issued an order for the removal from office of
Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, with
intent to violate the tenure-of-offiee act, and
to remove said Stanton from office.
In that on said 21st of February he issued
to General Thomas a letter authorizing aud
empowering him to act as Secretary of War,
there being no vacancy in that office, with
intent to violate the teuure-ot-office act.
In that on the said 21st ot February he did
appoint said Thomas to be Secretary for the
Department of War ad interim, without the
advice aud consent of the Senate, no vacancy
having happened in said ofliee, with intent to
violate the Constitution of the United States.
In that he conspired with said Thomas to
hinder and prevent said Stanton from filling
said office; to prevent and hinder the execu
tion of the tenure-of-offiee act; to get posses
sion of tlio War Office, and of the property of
the United States in the Department of War.
In that, with intent to violate the tenure
of-office act, he authorized said Thomas to
act as Secretary of War, there being no va
cancy in said office, and the Senate then be
ing in session.
In that he attempted unlawfully to induce
General Emery to obey his orders, and not
those issued by the General of the army, with
intent to enable him to defeat the tenure-of
offiee act, with inteut to prevent said Stanton
from holding his office.
In that, to bring Congress into contempt,
and excite the odium of the people against
Congress and the laws by it enacted, he made
-certain public addresses, indecent and unbe
coming in the Chief Magistrate, by means
whereof he brought the office iuto contempt,
lidicule and disgrace.
In that he attempted to prevent said Stan
ton from resuming the office of Secretary of
War, after the refusal of the Senate to con
cur in his suspension; also to prevent the ex
ecution of the act of 2d of March, 1867, mak
ing appropriations for the support ot the ar
my. and an act to provide for the more effi
cient government of the rebel States.
The President answering, does not contro
vert the essential facts charged, but insists
that the acts complained of arc authorized by
the Constitution and laws; and further, that
if in any respect this plea fails of a complete
justification, he should still be acquitted, as
those acts were all done in good faith in the
performance of public duties arising in the
execution of his office, imposed upon him by
the Constitution and laws aud in Science and
execution of them. Concurring in much of
the reasoning of the Senators who are of
opinion that the answer and defence of the
President as to several of the charges 'ail of
such justification, 1 shall content myself with
a statement of the grounds of my opinion up
on a portion of the articles only.
The first three articles and the eleventh re
late to the attempt to remove Mr. Stanton
from the office of Secretary of War; the au
thority to General Thomas to take possession
and to do the duties of the office; the ap
pointment of General Thomas as Secretary
oi war aa interim; ana tne attempt to pre
vent Mr. Stanton front resuming the duties
of his official office after his suspension had
been non-concurred in by the Senate.
The question arising under these articles
turns chiefly upon the question whether the
tenure-of-oflice act is in conflict with tlieCon
stitution of the United States, and the case
of Mr. Stanton was affected by it.
Is the tenure-of office act unconstitutional,
and is Mr. Stanton embraced in its provisions
so as to be protected by it?
As to the first proposition as between the
Senate and the President, it is not a new
question, and it is difficult to perceive how it
can properly be regarded by either as an open
question. The act had been fully considered
when it was first enacted in the Senate, was
reconsidered after it had been returned by
the President with his objections fully stated,
and again passed with that unanimity neces
sary to give it the force of law, his objections
to the contrary notwithstanding, and calcu
lated to leave little doubt as to the confidence
with which the Senate held its opinions.
The legislative and executive precedents
and practice in our history touching the pow
er of the President to remove from office, re
lied upon by him as authoritative interpreta
tion of the Constitution, were known and fa
miliar to Congress at the time. It is not
suggested that the act was hastily or incon
siderately passed, as it will not be doubted
that Congress had, in the recent examples of
the exercise of this power by the Executive,
abundant opportunity of judging of the expe
diency of a further continuance of this prac
The binding force of this practice of re
moval by the President rests upon the in
terpretation given to the Constitution
by the first Congress. It is not in
sisted that this interpretation by that
Congress was authoritative and conclusive
upon succeeding Congresses, and it is admit
ted that the extent of its authority is as a
precedent only. The question was therefore
open to further legislative regulation, and the
practice which had obtained under the act of
1789 could properly and should necessaiily be
modified or reversed, as experience should
dictate that the public interests demanded.
The Congress of 1867, it will not be denied,
bad all the power over the subject that the
Congress of 1789 is supposed to have had.
Besides it is well known that the Congress
of 1789 were far from having been unani
mous in their opinions and* action; that one
branch was equally divided upon the measure
and it finally passed by the casting vote of
the presiding officer; and that from that time
to the date of the act in question the inter
pretation of the first Congress had been re
peatedly the subject of grave debate in Con
gress, and was believed by the most eminent
of our statesmen, jurists, aud commentators
upon the Constitution, to be unsound.
Indeed the President is not understood to
invoke the Senate now to declare void for
conllict with the Constitution a law which
nau so recently received its sanction, and
that atter his objections to it had been fully
considered, but the argument presented
is rather in extenuation of his refusal to obey
and enforce it. For the purpose ol these
proceedings, the act in question may properly
and must necessarily be regarded as valid,
unless, indeed, it should be deemed advisable
that Congress should repeal all laws the va
lidity of which may be questioned by the
President, which he may deem inexpedient,
or to which he does not yield a willing obedi
We are then brought to consider the ques
tion whether the case of Mr. Stanton was af
fected by the tenure of office act. The first
section of that act is as follows:
That every person holding any civil office to
which he has been appointed by and with the ad
vice and consent of the Senate, aud every person
who shall lierealter be appointed to any such office,
and shall become inly qualified to act therein, is ami
shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor
shall have been iu like manner appointed an i
duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided.
Pnmaed, Thai the Secretaries ofState, of the Trea
sury, of War, ol the Ka.y, and ol the Interior, the
Postmaster Genet al, and the Attorney General,
shall hold their offices respectively for tind during
the term ot the President by whom they may have
been appointed, and for one mouth thereafter, sub
ject to removal by aud with the advice and consent
of the Senate.
The counsel for the President contend that
“out of the body oi the section it is explicitly
declared that there is to be excepted a partic
ular class of officers, ‘except as herein other
wise provided.’ ” The Senator horn Iowa,
Mr. Grimes, in his published opinion, says:
“Mr. Stanton’s ease is not within the body of
the first section. The tenure which that pro
vides for is not the tenure of any Secretary.”
Other Senators, who agree with Mr. Grimes
in the conclusion to which lie comes, adopt
the views of the counsel lor the President.—
These views are the opposites in statement
aud principle, and cannot be reconciled with
eaclt other.
The construction of Judge Curtis is that
the body of the section—the words “every
person holding any civil office, appointed with
the advice and consent of the Senate”—nec
essarily includes Mr. Stanton’s case, as he
was a civil officer who had been appointed
with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
to get rid of Mr. Stanton’s case he is forced
to the construction that the words, “except
as herein otherwise provided,” “except him
out of the body ot the sectionwhile the
Senator from Iowa accomplishes the same, re
sult, more directly, but not less erroneously,
by denying altogether that his ease is includ
ed in the \jody of the section. It admits ot
no argument that this last opinion is unsound,
and that conclusions drawn from such pre
mises are untenable. The words, “every per
son holding any civil office,” &c., by the force
of the unavoidable meaning of language, it
must be conceded, embrace tue case of Mr.
Stanton, then holding the office of Secretary
of War.
llut leaving this discrepancy of deduction
I turn to the construction of the act by Judge
Curtis, which seems to be the generally re
ceived interpretation ol those who hold that
Mr. Stanton’s case is not provided tor in the
He concedes that the words “every person
holding any cixil office,’’ Are., include Mr.
Stanton, but insists that the words “except as
herein otherwise provided,” taken in connec
tion with the proviso that lollows, operate to
exclude him horn tLis general description of
The words “except as herein otherwise
provided,” it is plain, eitht r standing alone or
taken in connection with the proviso are not
entitled to the force of terms of absolute ex
clusion, but rather are used in the sense of
qualifying some antecedent provision in the
body ot the section. Now what are these
antecedent words or provision to which these
qualifying words relate, and which they ate
supposed to modity I* Do they quality the
provision “every person holding any civil of
fice,” &c., “except as herein otherwise provid
ed,” or the words “is and shall be entitled to
hold his said office until his successor shall in
like manner be appointed and qualified,”
“exc^rt as herein otherwise provided ?”
Do the qualifying words operate to exclude
a portion of the persons from holding office
under this act altogether, or do they operate
to qualify the condition of holding} The
former construction, it is submitted, do»s vio
lence to the intent of the act; besides, it is
an obvious misapplication of the qualifying
words to a portion of the section to which
they do not relate. I; is clear that it was the
intent ot the act to regulate a tenure of office
ot some sort, of all the persons described in
the body of the section, that is, “every per
son holding any civil office,” Are.; but by this
construction a portion of those persons tail
to be provided lor altogether; while the adop
tion of the other view provides tor them a
tenure of office, but different in its condi
tions, and is thus in harmony witii the ob
jects of the law.
II it be accepted that the Secretaries are
not exccp'.ed out of the body of the section,
and that the ellect of the proviso is simply to
provide and determine what their tenure of
office shall be, the only remaining question is
whether the provision does make sucli ten
ure lor Mr. Stanton. It is contended that it
does not, as he was not the appointee of Mr.
Johnson, and that the term of Mr. Lincoln,
whose appointee he was, was determined by
death. It is conceded that Mr. Stanton was
appointed by Mr. Lincoln in his first term of
office, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to hold during the pleasure of the
President lor the time being; that he was du
ly holding office under that appointment in
the second term of Mr. Lincoln and up to his
death. He was, therefore, the appo ntee of
Mr. Lincoln, by original appointment iu his
first term, and not less so in his second term,
in effect, by adoption and continuance in of
fice under the first appointment, the person
and the office being identical, and there being
no limitation in the teuure of the office, ex
cept the pleasure of the President for the
time being. Mr. Stanton was, therefore,
properly holding office by appointment ofMr.
Lincoln in his second term at his death. He
continued to hold under such appointment
and commission lrom Mr. Lincoln after the
succession ot Mr. Johnson, and, by his adop
tion and continuance in office, and was so
holding at the passage of the lenure-of-office
But it is said that if he is to be regarded as
the appointee of Mr. Lincoln in his second
term, he is still not embraced in the terms of
this act, as that terra closed with the death
of Mr. Lincoln, and that since that eveut he
has been holding in the term of Mr. John
son. It therefore becomes necessary to de
termine what was the ‘‘term” of President
Lincoln. Was it an absolute period of four
years, or was it that period during which he
served in his office; the period tor which he
was elected, or the period he held and occu
pied his office? Was the term of his office
subject, in the language of the counsel for the
President, to a “conditional limitation?”
The term of the presidential office, by the
Constitution, is four years, and that without
regard to the contingency of holding or peri
od of actual service. It describes .the period
for which the office lasts, and is without lim
itation. The tenure ot his office is subject to
the contingencies of death, resignation, or re
moval ; but that relates to the condition of
actual homing or penal ol service, and in no
way affects the term or period lor which he
was elected. Now, the language of the pro
viso is, “shall hold lor the term of the Presi
dent by whom appointed.” Mr. Stanton was
appointed by Mr. Lincoln, whose term of of
fice was absolutely four years, under the
Constitution. The statute adopts the same
word term, and this makes the period of
bolding identical with the period ol the Pres
idential office, and does not subject it to the
contingencies of the tenure of his office or the
period of his service.
I pass the question whether Mr. Johnson
is or not serving out his own or the term of
Mr. Lincoln as unimportant in the view taken
of the question. Their terms of office as a
period of time, were identical, and whether
he is serving out Mr. Lincoln’s term of office,
as Vice-President, upon whom devolve the
duties of the office of President by death,
can have no influence upon the general fact
of what was Mr. Stanton’s term of office. In
either case his term would be the same.
But if, as is contended by counsel for the
President and those who adopt his views, the
proviso failed to provide a tenure for Mr.
Stanton, he being conceded to be in the body
of the section, then as to him the words, “ex
cept as herein otherwise provided,” fail to
have any effect, and leave his tenure unaffect
ed, and the same as that provided in the
body of the section for the description of
persons mentioned. I conclude, therefore,
that the act did not fail of its object, namely,
to regulate the tenure of office of “every per
son holding any civil office to which he has
been appointed by and wilh the advice and
consent of the Senatethat Mr. Stanton’s
case was not excepted out of its provisions;
that the proviso does regulate for him a ten
ure of office; hut if it do not, then it is clear
that it is regulated as is provided in the body
of the section for “every person holding any
civil office,” &c., and that his removal was a
clear violation of this act.
But it is said that it is at least doubtful if
the act did affect Mr. Stanton’s case, and that
the eff ort to remove him from his office on the
21st February last was an attempt on the part
of the President which he might well believe
he had a right to make; that the attempt did
net succeed, and that it would be an abuse of
power to remove him from his high office on
grounds so slight.
But did the President truly believe that ho
had the right, that it was clear, and that the
public welfare justified and demanded its exer
cise? He had refused his assent to thetenure
of-oflice act, stating in his message, among his
reasons expressed for refusal so to do, that its
provisions deprived him of control over his
Ho had suspended Mr. Stanton under its
provisions—so stated to the Secretary of the
Treasury, as required by its provisions. He
had communicated his reasons for this suspen
sion, agreeably to the terms ot the act, to the
Senate. He had been advised of the action oi
thSenate upon that suspension, and ot the
acquiescence of General Grant in its determin
ation of the case, and had witnessed the return
of Mr. Stanton to his office and its duties in
accordance with the imperative provisions of
this act. With these acts and this knowledge
upon the record, it is difficult to believe that
the President was acting in that measure of
good faith and in the presence and under the
pressure ot a public necesity which would jus
tify the defiance of a law ot even doubtful im
port; and in this attempt to put aside a high
officer of the government without charge of
misconduct in office, and after his purpose had
been overruled by the Senate, it is submitted
there is apparent less of desire to consult the
public interests and faithfully to execute the
laws, than to execute his own purposes upon
a public officer who bad incured his personal
displeasure. Nor is it easy to adopt the opin
ion that the charges and proof in support of
them may properly be regarded as slight or
The President may not arbitrarily and with
out cause depose a high public officer with im
punity independently of the act under consider
ation. Wantonly to do it would constitute
the essence of arbitrary and unbridled power,
and fend to establish that irresponsible license
over the laws fatal to republican government,
the first appearance ot which demands to be re
buked and resisted. The officer and the office
belong and are amenable -to the law; they are
its servants and not the “satraps” of the Presi
dent. The right of removal is not an arbitrary
right in any respect; and subject to removal
himself, the President could have no right to
complain of the enforcement of a rule against
him which he could apply to those in his pow
er. The public interest, and that aloue, must
justify the action.
L lie President declares in his answer that so
early as August last he had determined to
cause Mr. Stanton “to surrender his office of
Secretary of the Department of War.” To that
eud oil the 12th of the same month he suspend
ed him from his office, on pretence of miscon
duct in office, as now in his answer claimed,
under the exercise of a power before unheard
of, and certainly never betore practiced or as
serted by any of his predecessors, namely, the
power to suspend irom office indefinitely, and
at his pleasure, not until meeting of the Sen
ate, ‘ as incident to the right of remoral;” and
liavin r so suspended, kept that officer out of
his office and out of the public service for
many months,^nd long after Congress and
the Senate had convened, and for reasons sta
ted in his message to the Senate, wholly inad
equate, unsatisfactory, and unjustifiable in the
judgment of that body, and which if not tri
fling, were characterized by personal rather
than public considerations.
It will be observed that he at onco invokes
the aid of the teuure-of office act to enable him
to suspend from office a public officer who had
incurred his personal displeasure, and after
wards when that had failed, attempts to re
move him in defiance of its authority and in
contempt of its validity. He at once invokes
and violates the act of 1795. He professes to
have appointed General Grant Secretary of
War ad interim under it, and then violated it
by retaining him in office contrary to its provi
He invokes the judgment ol the Scnuie on
the suspension of Mr. Stanton, and after that
judgement has been pronouuced against him,
and under it the officer had returned to his du
ties in obedience to the act under which he had
been suspended, he defies its authority by his
removal, appoints General Thomas Secretary
of War ad interim, holds him out to the coun
try as the rightful Secretary of War, treats
him as a constituent member ofliis cabinet,
ignores Mr. Stanton altogether, and thus sub
jects the conduct ol the office of the Depart
ment of War to the dangers,embarrassments
and perils which may come if these conflict
ing pretensions arc made good l»y his acuuital.
If to these be aided the spirit of dcfiauce
mauife>t iu hi* message to the Senate of Feb
ruary 22d last, aud his determination, and deter
mination at any and all hazards to the pub
lic interests, i<» cause a personally obnoxious
public offio r “to surrender hi* office,” I am per
suaded the peril to our republican struct
ure of government will have become immiueut
when such eonduct in the President shall
Come to be tegarded and tolerated as slight
and trilling, aud shall not on the contrary, be
held a hi^h misdemeanor ia office. Mr.
Madison, iu commenting upon this subject,
says, ‘*1 contend that th“ wanton removal or
meritorious officers would subject him (the
President) to impeachment and removal from
his own high office.”
A different question is presented on the se
cond and third articles. On the 21st Februa
ry, assuming to have removed Mr. Stantou,
the President, iu writing, authorized Geueral
Thomas to act ;is Secretary of War. aud ap
pointed him Secretary of War ad interim, there
being no vacancy in that office, or pretence of
vacancy, except the letter to Mr. Stanton of
the same date, the Senate then being in ses
sion and not being advised upon the subject.
The President, in his answer, insists that at
the date of the letter aud its delivery to Gen
eral Thomas there was a vacancy iu the office
of Secretary of War caused by removal; that,
notwithstanding the Senate was iu session, it
was lawful and iu accord ace with lon^-estab
lished usage to empower said Thomas to act as
Secretary of War ml interim; and that if the
tcuure-ot-office act be valid, in doing so he vio
lated none of its provisions.
v* ueuier mere was or not a vacancy in mat
office will uepeud upon the effect given to the
letter of removal addressed to Mr Stanton,
which was not acquiesced in, and under which j
no removal dc facto was effected; and whether
the attempted removal, or order of removal,
was justified by any usage arising under auv
provision of law. It is not pretended that any
act of Congress expressly confers this power
while the Senate is in session, much less that
the power is drawn from any express provision
ot the Constitution. No parallel in the histo
ry of the government is shown or is believed
to exist. The only case at all approaching it
is that of Timothy Pickering, where the remo
val aud the nomination to the Senate of his
successor were simultaneous, and were essen
tially one and the same act, which was in and of
itself the mode adopted by the President of
obtaining tlie advice and consent of the Sen
ate to the removal. But in this case there was
an attempted removal without reference to the
Senato aud independent of it, and the appoint
ment of a Secretary ad,interim, aud no nomi
nation to the Senate of a successor. Neither
by the implication of the Constitution, laws,
nor usage was (he removal of Mr. Stanton aud
the designation of General Thomas as Secre
tary of VVar ad interim authorized.
But it is insisted that the removal of Mr.
Stanton having created a vacancy the Presi
dent was authorized to fill it temporarily by
the designation of General Thomas, under the
act of 1795, and that that act was uot repealed
by the act of 18(>3. This latter act repeals all
acts and parts of acts inconsistent w ith its
provisions; and it is said that its provisions
are not inconsistent in some one or more par
ticulars with the forme • act upon the same
subject, which to that extent at least is not re
pealed. This construction is quite too nirrow.
The question is not whether the repealing act
in any particular uegattves the former act, but
whether in its object aud scope it was a sub
stantial revision of the law upon the particu
lar subject. If so, then, by well-established
rules ot legal interpretation, it does operate
to repeal the former laws upon that subject.
Now it is apparent from an examination of
those statutes that tlie act of 18tt» was such a
statute of revision. The act of 179*2, upon the
same subject, made provision for tlie case of
vacancy by death, and certain temporay disa
bilities in the State. War and Treasury Depart
ments. That of 1795 provided that “in case of
vacancy,” &e., and both alike in the eases con
templated, provided that the President might
“authorize any person or persons, at his dis
cretion, to perform the duties,” &c. The act ot
18(1*5 provides that ill case of resigoati id,
death, absence from the seat of government,
or sickness in the heads of any of the existing
departments, the President may authorize any
head of any other department,” &c., to perform
the duties, &c.
xueacioi i»o.j is a revision ot tne law on
the subject, as it embraces the objects of both
prior statutes; provides for vacancy by resig
nation, not provided for specifically, and
changes the rule of both prior statutes as
to the persons to be authorized to perform the
duties temporarily, and makes provision for
the other departments, and adapts the exist
ing laws to the present changed state of affairs.
Can it be doubted that the act ot 1863 was in
tended to be a revision of the whole law
upon the subject; that it did provide and was
intended to provide one uniform rule for all
the departments, and not in ease of vacancy
by death, resignation, &c., authorize the
appointment ot boach of departments, &c.,
and in case of vacancy by removal to author
ize “any person or persons?” That the act of
1863 was intended to have this effect is clear
from the statement of the chairman of the
Committee ou the Judiciary who reported the
act, Hon. Mr. Trumbull, that it was his under
standing that it did repeal all former acts up
on that subject.
But this precise question of the removal of
of Stanton and appointment of Gen, Thomas
was fully adjudicated by the Senate, and con
cluded by its action on the 21st February la>t.
This is its record :
Whereas tbe Semite have received and considered
the communication of the Piesklein, stating that he
had removed Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War,
and had de-ignated Lorenzo Thomas to act as Secre
tary ol'War ad interim: Therefore
liesolved by the Senate of the United States,
That under the Constitution and laws of the Uni
ted States the President lias no power to remove the
Secretary of War and designate any other officer to
perform the duties of that office ad interim.
Was that adjudication of an act done and
submitted to tbe Senate for its consideration
erroneous? The resolution finally passed the
Senate without division
To those who would weaken the force of this
record, or find excuse for the President in the
unimportance of the transaction, it may be re
plied that if tbe Senate would retain its self
respect, or command the respect of others, it
must stand by its decrees until reversed tor er
ror, and not for the reason that the President
defies them, or refuses to yield obedience to
them . The President tells the Senate, in his
communication upon the subject, that as early
as August last lie had “determined to cause
Mr. Stantou to surrender the office of Secre
tary for the Pepartnieut of War.” That issue
is now for the third time distinctly before the
Senate, twice by the action of tbe President,
and now by the action of tbe representatives
of the people. A surrender of the record of
the Senate is a surrender of a public officer
to tbe predetermined purpose and per
sonal will of tlie President. It is needless to
say such a result would be tbe deposition of a
high public officer without cause, a triumph
ant defiance of the law of the laud and of the
supreme legislative authority of the country.
Whoever contemplates such a result with
indifference may prepare for the advent of ex
ecutive usurpation totally subversive of our
system of government.
it only remains to consmer the proposition
of the counsel for the President that he should
not be held guilty on an assumed innocent mis
take in interpreting the law. In judging of
the intent with which the President acted, the
public record of that officer, his acts, speeches
and policy, and the current events of history
connected therewith, may properly be consider
ed. The quality of the particular act may be r<«
fleeted from the body of official reputation and
puldic conduct, good or bad.
In determining the character of the acts
complained of, touching the intent of the Pres
ident, we may consider whether they relate to
his antecedent official conduct, whether they
were purely public and official or private and
personal, whether they arose out of some real
or supposed pressing public exigency, or
whether, asm the case ot Mr. Stanton, from the
real or assumed misconduct of a public offi
cer, or from a settled determination to get rid
of one who had become disagreeable to him,
at all hazards, and because it was his pleasure
no longer to tolerate him in his office. In this
light consider some of the facts connected
with the removal of Mr. Stanton and the de
signation ol General Thomas as Secretary of
War ad interim. In his note ot the 5th Au
gust last, requesting the resignation of Mr.
Stanton, the President says he is constrained
to do so from “public considerations of a high
character.” The nature of these considerations
is left to conjecture.
In his message ot December 12,18C>7, assign
ing the reason for the suspension of Mr. Stan
ton, he says he deemed the leply to his note
above referred to as a defiance aud expression
of a loss of confidence in his superior, and
“that it must necessarily end our most impor
tant relations.”
Also that Mr. Stanton held opinions upon
the suffrage bill for the District of Columbia
and the reconstruction acts of March 2 and’
23,18(»7, which could not he reconciled with
his own or the rest of the cabinet, and that
there was but one result that could solve the
difficulty, aud “that was the severcuce of offi
cial relations.”
As these reasons antedate those assigned for
the immediate suspension of Mr. Stanton, and
are the only causes of recent occurrence, it is
fair to presume that the uote which is declared
to have led to the suspension was induced by a
predetermination to sever the relations, ren
dered necessary, in his opinion, by that want
of “unity of opinion” existing in the cabinet
on account of the conflicting opinion of Mr.
in ins answer 10 amine one me President
says that on nr prior to August 5, IH67, “he
had become satisfied that he could not allow
Mr. Stanton to continue to hold the office of
Secretary tor the Department of War with
out hazard to the public interests.” “That the
relations between them no lon*rer permitted
the President to resort to him for advice or be
responsible tor his conduct of the affairs of the
Department of War,” and that therefore he
determined that he ought not longer to hold
said office, and considered what he”might law
fully do to cause him to surrender said office.
These are understood to lie the reasons for
the suspension, as also for the removal or at
tempted removal of the Secretary of War.
They are, substantially, that the “relations
between them” had become such in August,
1867, as not to “permit the President to resort
to him for advice, or be responsible for his con
duct of the Department of War as by law re
quired;” and these “relations” are “differ
ences of opinion” upon the “suffrage bill,” and
the reconstruction acts of the 2d r.ud 23d
March, 1867, “upon which Mr. Stanton stood
alone in the cabiuet, and the difference of
opinion could not be reconciled.”
These are the “public considerations of a
high character,” stated in the note of August
•>, which was a request for the resignation of
the Secretary, and which led to his suspension
and subsequent removal, to prevent his re
suming the duties of his office after/lie action
of the Senate.
\\ lieu before iu the history of the govern
ment did a President hold that “difference of
opinion” of a cabinet officer as to the policy of
a law of Congress, or its constitutionality,
or the propriety of its enforcement, were
“public considerations of a high character,”
which not only “constrained” him to request
his resiguatioii of office”but to suspend him—
aud, defeated in that by the adverse action ot
the Senate, {to remove him, to “prevent him
from resuming the duties of the office.” It is
certain that dith*reuces of opinion “in the cab
iuet” are not unknown iu our history, as to
the expediency, the policy, aud the interpreta
tion of laws; that tuey were marked in the
cabinet of Washington, and that they were not
supposed and were not held to be “public con
siderations” of a character demanding removal
from office.
The present case is especially noticeabla,from
the fact, of public notoriety as well a* declar
ed in the President's auswer and message, that
the“differeuceofopinioii "complained of wasthat
views of the Secretary of War were in harmony
with those of Congress upon the acts mention*
ed, while those ot the President were opposed.
! as had been expressed in his veto message, anu
ihe “d Acuities'* from arising such “differences
■ of opinion,” and which coulu only be solved by
suspension and removal from office, were such
as are publicly known to have arisen on the
question of the execution of the reconstruction
acts of March 2 and 23.
It isnibaervabie tnat no public exigency is
stated by the President to have arisen de
manding action iu Mr. Stantoq's case; no mal
versation or misconduct in office; no disobedi
ence of, or refusal or neglect to obey orders of
the President, if alleged or suggested. Besides,
the Senate had beeu recently iu session, since
the “relation and difference of opiuion had de
veloped,”in two different periods affording
ample opportunity lor the appointment of
his successor, if the public interests demanded
a change of that officer and were of a charac
ter to commend themselves to that body.
Some stress has been laid upou the want of
“confidence” iu the Secretary, which would
not permit a resort to him for advice, aud
rendered it uusafe that the President should
be responsible for bis official conduct.
It is difficult to appreciate the importance
which seems to be attached to this statement.
The Secretary of War is certainly not the con
stitutional adviser of the President in his gen
eral administration, nor is the President euti
tled to his opinion, except in the case contem
plation ot the Constitution, aud that upon af
fairs arisiug in his own department, aud iu re
lation thereto.
Nor is it obvious what i< intended by the
statement in the answer about being responsible
| for his conduct of the affairs of the Depart
ment of War.
What is the nature of this supposed respon
sibility, and how imposed? We are uot iu
lornied in the answer. No such responsibility
is understood to be imposed by the Constitu
tion, and none is believed to exist in the laws
oreatiug the Department of War and defining
the duties of the Secretary of War.
By no provisicu of the Constitution or laws
is it believed that the President is chargeable
with the consequences of any misconduct or
neglect of duty of that officer with which he
himself is uot connected.
The Secretary and he alone must answer to
the violated law for his misconduct and neg
lect oi duty, and the assumption that the Pres
ident is responsible for them is to assume that
the War Department is under the direction
and at the discretion of the President, aud not
under the statute creating it, aud by*which it
is conducted.
It is difficult to believe that in the suspen
sion and consequent removal of Mr. Stan
ton the President was actuated solely by “pub
lic consideration*.” and especially does he fail
to make it clear that he was acting on the
pressure of a state necessity or public exigen
cy which justified hiiu in nrst experimenting
with a law of Congress by suspending a pub
lia office r under it, aud tailing of his declared
purpose iu that, namely, “to cause him to sur
render his” office, then to defy its authority by
disregarding it altogether,and remove tnu of
ficer so suspended confessedly to prevent his
resuming the duties of the office after the ad
verse action of the Seuate upou the case sub
mitted to it for its consideration.
The doubts which are invoked to shield the
President tail to protect him, as he fail* to
to show any cause or public necessity for the
exercise of adoubtful power under the Consti
tution aud taws, while his official conduct
plainly tdicws a spirit of hostility to the whole
series of acts of Congress designed for the re
construction of the late insurrectionary State*
and the pacification of the country, aud an
intent to obstruct rather than faithfully to ex
ecute these laws.
±t, inert-run*, uouocj arise on me rocuru, Li.oy
belong to the couutry and to the violated
laws, and presumption ot innocence cannot
obtain where the siuister purpose is apparent.
It is impossible to withhold a conviction of the
President’s guilt under the articles presented
by the House of Representatives for usurpa
tions of power not delegated by the Constitu
tion and tor violation and obstruction of the
laws of the land, and that he is guilty ot high
crimesaud misdemeanors in office, which, as a
remedy for the present disorders which afflict
the nation consequent upon them, and for the
future security against the abuse of executive
authority, demand, iu harmony with the pro
visions of the Constitution, his removal from
Tlie Riverside Institute I.ntlery Swindle.
We learn by an article iu thu Philadelphia
Evening Star of the 25th iust., that the man
agers of this bogus and defunct concern
are to have justice meted out to them at
last. One of them has been arrested
in Philadelphia and held to bail to
answer at the next term of the Criminal
Court on the charge of conspiracy to defraud .
The arrest was made on the oath of only one
ticket holder, who it is understood is backed
by some sixty others each one of whom will
prosecute the managers on his own responsi
bility, which will render it obligatory on the
part of the managers to enter good security
for their appearance to answer oacii charge.—
It is said to be a fact, and one that can be
sworn to by a score of witnesses, that no one
prize was actually awarded fairly that was
worth over ten cents. The prosecution ot this
case, we are assured, will lead to some inter
esting disclosures, which we may lay before
our readers, quite a large number of whom in
this city and vicinity invested in this concern.
In the meantime a little iusight into the modus
operandi of these swindlers may not be unin
teresting and we will therefore quote a few
paragraphs jroni the Star’s expose:
The award of the $40,000 prize, constitutes a
history iu itself. One of the managers, we are
informed, so fixed matters that a certain M. D. ,
should go to Portland, Maine, and there pur
chase a ticket, which ticket should be so ar
ranged that it should draw the principal or
first cash prize of $40,000. The M. D. aid as
lie was requested, and purchased his ticket, the
number of which was carefully noted by the
Alter it had become known that the M. D.
had drawn the prize, the agent who sold the
ticket and who supposed everything hail been
conducted honorably and fairly, appeared on
the ground, aud after vainly endeavoring to
purchase the ticket from the supposed lucky
man, made the proposition that he (the ngent)
should in behalf of his having sold the ticket
receive at least $10,000 of the $40,000. So deter
mined was the agent that became on to Phila
delphia in company with the M. D., and it was
not until his arrival here that the deception
became apparent to him. He soon saw the
whole thing in its proper light, and when ap
plied to by the managers for a large sum of
money iu his possession realized from the sale
of tickets, be refused to relinquish the same,
stating that it had been obtained under false
pretences, and that it was his intention to re
fund it to those who had purchased tickets
through him. Of course he did so.
Another difficulty also arose in regard to
the $40,000 prize. The managers in telegraph
ing the number to the agent at Portland, made
a mistake, transposed a couple of the figures,
and sent the wrong number. This of course
highly elated a party who happened to have
purchased a ticket bearing the number as er
roneously transmitted. This party was ren
dered nearly wild by the announcement, was
about packing up to come on to Philadelphia
to claim his fortune, when the second dis
patch with the number corrected, arrived.
The cry ol “something is wrong,” was at ouce
raised, and the party whose number was first
reported to have drawn the prize, and who
certainly did “draw it” as fairly as the M. D.,
shortly after commenced legal proceedings
which thus far have resulted in talk.
What the M. D. received lor his services, or
whether he ever received anything for his rep
resentation of the $40,000 has not yet trans
pired. In this manner all the prizes were dis
posed of. The numbers which carried off the
principal gifts were prepared and written off
three or four days previous to the bogus draw
ing, which came oft' at a late hour at night, in
the presence oi some fifteen or twenty per
sons, all of whom, with a few exceptions, were
in the interest of the AA'ashington Library
Company. The above are a few ol the facts
that will be brought to light upon the tual ol
mew panics. . . ...
There are many other facts connected with
the buying off iff mortgage*, and the power
which these swindlers publicly stated they had
with certain officials, etc., of which we tor
bear to sneak, lireferring that such things
shoiild only come to light under the sworn tes
timony of those who will be called upon as wit
nesses in this interesting case.
These swindlers are still at work, having
changed their headquarters to New York and
many of our citizens have recently received
certificates assuring them tnat they have hail
prizes awarded them valued at two hundred
dollars which they cau have by transmitting
$10 to pay lor packing, &c., and naming the
express by which they wish the prizes sent.
—Many of the factories and mills on New
England streams have had to suspend opera
tions the past week on account of backwater,
occasioned hv the copious rains.
—An Illinois farmer was caught in a corn
sliellcr and came out with nothing on but his
boots and neck-tie.

xml | txt