FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443  
444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   >>   >|  
us conviction of the truth. And we are not bound to technical definitions of crimes and misdemeanors. "A willful violation of the law, a gross and palpable breach of moral obligations tending to unfit an officer for the proper discharge of his office, or to bring the office into public contempt and derision, is, when charged and proven, an impeachable offense. And the nature and criminality of the offense may depend on the official character of the accused. A judge would be held to higher official purity, and an executive officer to a stricter observance of the letter of the law. The President, bound as a citizen to obey the law, and specially sworn to execute the law, may properly, in his high office as chief magistrate, be held to a stricter responsibility than if his example was less dangerous to the public safety. Still, to justify the conviction of the President there must be specific allegations of some crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, gross misconduct, or a willful violation of law, and the proof must be such as to satisfy the conscience of the truth of the charge. "The principal charges against the President are that he willfully and purposely violated the constitution and the laws, in the order for the removal of Mr. Stanton, and in the order for the appointment of General Thomas as Secretary of War _ad interim_. These two orders were contemporaneous--part of the same transaction--but are distinct acts, and are made the basis of separate articles of impeachment." I stated the grounds of my conviction that the action of the President, in placing Lorenzo Thomas in charge of the office of Secretary of War, without the advice and consent of the Senate, was a clearly illegal act, committed for the purpose of obtaining control of that office. I held that the President had the power to remove Secretary Stanton, but that he had not the power to put anyone in his place unless the person appointed was confirmed by the Senate. Did the act of March 2, 1867, commonly known as the "tenure of office act," confer this authority? On the contrary, it plainly prohibits all temporary appointments except as specially provided for. The third section repeats the constitutional authority of the President to fill all vacancies happening during the recess of the Senate by death or resignation, and provides that if no appointment is made during the following session to fill such vacancy, the office shal
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443  
444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
office
 

President

 

Senate

 

Secretary

 

conviction

 

appointment

 
Stanton
 
Thomas
 

official

 
authority

specially

 

charge

 
offense
 

stricter

 

violation

 

public

 

willful

 

officer

 
illegal
 
resignation

placing

 

advice

 
grounds
 
Lorenzo
 

consent

 

action

 

vacancy

 
distinct
 

transaction

 

contemporaneous


session

 

impeachment

 

committed

 

articles

 
separate
 

stated

 
control
 

confer

 
section
 

tenure


commonly

 

prohibits

 

appointments

 
plainly
 

contrary

 

provided

 

repeats

 

constitutional

 

happening

 
remove