Look a little further, and the reason of this indifference becomes apparent. The old writ of _Quo Warranto_ was the only process by which a case could be made, and this only at the suit of the Attorney-General. Had the President made an order of removal, the Secretary would have been compelled to hold only by virtue of the law and the Constitution. In answer to the writ he would have pleaded this protection, and the Court must have decided the validity of the plea. Meanwhile he would have remained in office. Had he left, the process would have failed, and there was none other by which he could raise the question. The decision of the Supreme Court in _Wallace_ v. _Anderson_[209] would prevent resort to a _Quo Warranto_ on his part, while the earlier case of _Marbury_ v. _Madison_[210] would shut him out from a _Mandamus_. The apologists have not suggested any other remedy. It is clear, therefore, that Mr. Stanton’s possession of the office was a _sine qua non_ to a case in the Supreme Court, and that this could be only by _Quo Warranto_. The local attorney employed by the President testifies that in such a case judgment could not be reached within a year. This was enough to render it impracticable; for, if commenced, it would leave the hated Secretary at his post for the remainder of the Presidential term. During the pendency of the proceeding Mr. Stanton would continue legitimate possessor of the office. Therefore the commencement of a case would defeat the Presidential passion for instant removal. True to his passion, he removed the Secretary, well knowing that in this way he prevented a case for the Court. Against this conclusion, where all the testimony is harmonized, we have certain fruitless conversations with his Cabinet, and an attempt to raise the question on _Habeas Corpus_ after the arrest of Adjutant-General Thomas. Conversations, whose exclusion has given a handle to the apologists, which they do not fail to use, only show that the President made this question a subject of talk, and that, in the end, it became apparent that he could not make a case so as to remove Mr. Stanton during his term, and as this was his darling object, the whole idea was abandoned. The arrest of Adjutant-General Thomas seemed for a moment to furnish another chance; but it is enough to say of the futile attempt at that time, that it was not only after the removal of Mr. Stanton, but after impeachment had been voted by the House. Had the President been in earnest, it was very easy for him to make a case by proceeding against a simple postmaster; but this did not suit him. He was in earnest only to remove Mr. Stanton. Nothing is clearer than that this Moot-Court Apology is a wretched pretension and afterthought. It is the subterfuge of a criminal to cover up his crime,--as if a surgeon had committed murder, and then set up the apology that it was an experiment in science. THE APOLOGY OF PREROGATIVE.