On the following day a request was addressed by President Juarez to the
supreme court, asking leave for Mr. Lerdo de Tejada to continue acting
as minister for foreign affairs. This request was taken immediately into
consideration, and by a vote of seven to five was refused.
It has been the custom in this country for appointments to cabinet
positions frequently to be made, if the President so elects, from
members of congress, and even judges of the supreme court.
President Juarez, when chief justice in 1857, was appointed minister of
government by President Comonfort, and Mr. Lerdo de Tejada and Mr.
Balcarcel, two of the present ministers, were elected members of
congress. But for such officials to act under these appointments,
instead of their resignation, the permission of congress, or of the
supreme court, as the case may be, has been asked and obtained.
So now the request has been made by President Juarez, of the supreme
court, for leave for Mr. Lerdo de Tejada to continue in the cabinet, but
in this instance it has been refused. The grounds of the refusal are
variously stated. By some, it is claimed that the decision of the court
has been based solely upon the belief that the position of judge upon
the supreme bench is incompatible with any connection with political
affairs. By others, it is asserted that the court itself has intervened
in the political issues of the day, and that the refusal of leave to Mr.
Lerdo de Tejada is influenced solely by opposition to the policy of the
cabinet of which he has so long been the head.
The tone of public sentiment here, upon this incident, is shown in the
article of which I inclose translation herewith, from the paper of Mr.
Zarco, the late president of congress, who, it is rumored, is the
principal aspirant for Mr. Lerdo de Tejada’s place.
The opposition to Mr. Lerdo has for some time been very strong, but it
will be difficult to find another man of his ability, or who can give to
the government the same prestige, character, and positive strength. The
result of this crisis, and what the final action of the President will
be, is not yet determined.
The Supreme Court and the Cabinet.
[From the Siglo XIX, June 6,
1868.—Translation.]
The note in which the executive requested leave for Mr. Lerdo de
Tejada to continue in the cabinet, was signed by Mr. Aspiroz, the
chief clerk of the department of relations.
It was received just as the court was terminating the business of the
day.
The affair was immediately taken into consideration, and after a
brief discussion, was put to vote. There were in favor of granting
leave, Messrs. Garcia Ramirez, Zavala, Velazquez, Lafragua, and
Ordaz; and for refusing it, Messrs. Ogazon, Cardoso, Riva Palacio,
Simon Guzman, Leon Guzman, Castello Velasco, and Altamirano. This
result was communicated immediately to the executive, and produced a
great sensation in all political circles.
A thousand rumors are in circulation, of the authenticity of which we
are not certain.
It is said that the President has resolved to insist in asking the
leave, urging the free prerogative given him by the constitution to
select his ministers.
It is said that in the cabinet there are those who know that this
step will be entirely unavailing. It is also said that the remaining
ministers will present their resignations, for the purpose of
leaving the President entirely free to form a new cabinet.
To the decision of the court different interpretations are given.
There are some who believe that it was dictated by the political
consideration that the functionary who would be called upon to
exercise the executive power in default of the President, should
have no part in the acts of the latter, in order not to compromise
his responsibility;
[Page 487]
and
there are those who state that the court has desired to reprove the
policy of the chief of the cabinet, and to bring about a ministerial
crisis.
In so far as the vote of Justice Ogazon, it is explained by some as
being dictated by motives of personal delicacy, as, if Mr. Lerdo
should continue in the cabinet, Mr. Ogazon would remain exercising
the presidency of the court, and enjoying an increase of two
thousand dollars of salary.
The Globe applauds the decision of the court, and considers it as a
reprobation of the policy of the cabinet, but it doubts that a
ministerial crisis will occur.
The Monitor announces the refusal of the leave, under the head of
“Fall of the Lerdo cabinet,” and states that in the discussion of
the affair in the court, one of the justices said: “Providence or
chance has placed in our hands the indirect judgment of the policy
of the country, and that policy is false, feeble, and untoward, in
every point of view. In our sphere, and in conformity with our legal
attributes, we may point out the obstacle that renders sterile the
victory of Mexico, and that divides the great liberal party.”
The Monitor manifests great satisfaction at what has taken place, and
urges the President to appoint a new cabinet in harmony with the
inspiration of the public opinion, and recommends for that purpose
his worthy minister, Vallarta, the only one who merits the
confidence of the constitutional party.
This article of the Monitor is signed by Mr. Guillermo Prieto. The
same paper announces that Mr. Martinez de Castro, after the
occurrences of yesterday, has resolved not to return to the
cabinet.
The Constitution Social, without comments, gives the notice of the
leave having been refused.
The Opinion Nationale states what has occurred, and awaits full
information before expressing its opinions.
The other papers give the news without remark.
It cannot be denied that the incident of yesterday is very grave, and
that, in fact, it restricts the liberty of the President freely to
select the members of his cabinet.
It is also very serious for the judicial power to intervene in
politics, whether it may be taking part in practical questions or in
deciding those that are purely abstract.
But, as in fact the liberty of selecting ministers, so far as relates
to members of congress, or magistrates of the supreme court, has the
restriction of the permission of congress, or of the court, it
cannot be said that in this instance the supreme court of justice
has exceeded its attributes, or has proceeded beyond its rights.
We can understand very well that the enforced separation of Mr. Lerdo
must be extremely painful for the President of the republic, who, in
the most critical, perilous, and solemn moments, has relied upon the
patriotism and the abnegation of his minister of relations.
But so long as what takes place is not outside the legal order, it
has to be accepted, and to be put up with.
We do not believe it prudent to insist upon obtaining leave for Mr.
Lerdo, because from that step will only result a slight to the
executive. We remember, that when some time ago congress refused
leave to Mr. Berdusco to enter into the treasury department,
although the presidential prerogative was wounded, Mr. Juarez had
the calmness and the prudence to look for another minister.
In the present situation, when it is so urgent to re-establish peace,
and to reorganize the public administration, it is not in any manner
desirable that the march of the government should be paralyzed, or
that difficulties should be raised that may embarrass its action.
The moral responsibility of a change of cabinet will not rest upon
the President of the republic. This consideration should decide him
to proceed to organize a new cabinet, whose programme should be
strict compliance with the law, and the union of the liberal
party.
With reference to Mr. Lerdo de Tejada, who remains in the second
position in the republic, there is nothing in these occurrences that
impairs his great merits, or that can lead to a forgetfulness of the
distinguished services which he has rendered to the country in an
epoch of trial, and when the statesman has required something more
than talent and ability to persevere in the fulfillment of his
duty.
The President of the republic is in a situation that permits him to
overcome every difficulty, and to not pause in the work of the
reorganization of the country. The antecedents of his public life,
his self-denial and disinterestedness, are a guarantee that in the
present moment he will have the prudence and the tact that are
indispensable to continue governing in conformity with the
constitution, and in accord with public opinion.
