Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/562

 Timothy Otis Howe. champion it. Yet he did not arrive at con clusions quickly, nor did he act doggedly or selfishly. His official life was characterized by principle. And his colleagues trusted him because of that fact. Senator Howe took an active and prom inent part in the reconstruction policy of the government. In the discussion of resolutions on the subject in the Senate, March 12, 1867. offered by Charles Sumner, Mr. Howe made some pertinent suggestions on the subject of education. They are particularly interest ing reading, at this time, when a somewhat concerted attempt appears to be making to disfranchise the illiterate voters in the South. Mr. Howe, considering a resolution for the establishment of public schools in the South, said : "Mr. President, think of it as you may, dream of it as much as you please, God's truth is, and it is man's truth, too, you can not maintain republican principles and re publican form of government over a people where education is not, and is not universal. For a time the attempt may succeed, but sooner or later it must fail. Your institu tions are stronger or weaker just in propor tion as education is more or less general among the people of the United States. In those portions of the country where educa tion is most universal, there your institutions are the strongest and the most stable today, and have always been." Mr. Howe took a prominent part in the impeachment trial of President Johnson. He submitted a carefully prepared opinion upon the questions involved. Some of these re lated to the historical phase of the question, others to the constitutional rights involved, and others, still, might be termed purely po litical in their nature. The argument is too long for reproduction. But we quote a single paragraph, which, within the range of the ground which it traverses, is particularly strong and happy: "This power of removal is, then, not vested

513

in the President by anything said in the Con stitution, nor by anything properly implied from what is said. It seems to me, on the contrary, .it is positively denied by the mani fest purpose of the Constitution. That mani fest purpose is that the principal offices shall be held by those in whose appointment the Senate has concurred. The plain declaration is that 'He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint ambassadors,' etc. But this purpose may be wholly defeated, if the President have, by the Constitution, the un restricted power of removal; for it is as plainly declared that 'the President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.' If, then, the President has also the power during the recess of the Senate to make vacancies, at his pleasure by removal, his choice is supreme and the Sen ate is voiceless. He is only to remove all officers in whose appointment the Senate has concurred immediately upon the adjourn ment of that body, and commission others in their places. They will hold until the end of the next session. Just before that event he must nominate again to the Senate the officers he removed, or some others whom the Senate will confirm, and when the Senate has confirmed them and adjourned the Presi dent may again remove them all and restore his favorites once more to hold, until the end of another session when the same ceremony must be repeated. A deed which should grant a house to A and his heirs and to their use forever, but should also declare that B and his heirs should forever occupy it free of rent, would probably be held void for repug nancy. I do not think the Constitution is a nullity: and so I cannot concede that the President has in it a power implied so clearly repugnant to a power plainly declared to be in the Senate." Mr. Howe was a member of the Inter