The bill as finally enacted contained, moreover, the most stringent provisions for its enforcement. It made {126} the acceptance or exercise of any office or the attempt to exercise any office contrary to the Act a high misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of ten thousand dollars or a maximum imprisonment of five years, or both in the discretion of the court; and it made the removal, appointment, or employment of any officer contrary to the provisions of the Act, or the preparation, signing, sealing, countersigning or issuing of any commission of office or letter of authority in respect to any such appointment or employment high misdemeanors, punishable with the same extreme penalties. Lastly, it forbade the officers of the Treasury and all officers of the United States to pay any money, salary or compensation to any person claiming to hold any office or employment contrary to the provisions of this Act, and made the violation of this order a high misdemeanor, punishable with the same extreme penalties as in the other cases. [Sidenote: The President's vetoes of these bills.] This monstrous measure went to the President on the same day with the Reconstruction bill, the 20th of February. It is not to be wondered at that he felt that the Republican chiefs were offering him intentional personal insult, as well as that the legislative department of the Government was attempting an unwarranted encroachment upon the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. It is rather to be wondered at that, in his message to Congress on these subjects, he succeeded so well in ignoring the personal affronts intended by Congress, and in confining himself so closely to a discussion of the public questions and considerations involved in the measures. The vetoes of these bills were sent to Congress on the same day, March 2d. To the publicist and historian of this day they are masterpieces of political logic, constitutional interpretation, and official style. If not {127} written by Mr. Seward, they must have been edited and revised by him. These documents showed most convincingly, both from constitutional provisions, opinions of contemporaries, statutes of Congress, judicial decisions, and the uniform practices of the Government, that Congress had no power to establish or re-establish martial law anywhere in the country, except when and where war or armed rebellion existed as a fact, a condition which did not then exist anywhere in the length and breadth of the land; and that Congress had no power to force the President to retain agents and subordinates in office against his judgment and will. No good political scientist and no sound constitutional lawyer will, at this day, disagree with the contention of the President upon these two points, and it is very difficult to understand how the great leaders of the Republican party could, at that day, have differed with him. [Sidenote: Republican motives in Reconstruction.]