The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-16 00:00:00

duced to forego its own power of patronage through
its President. Col. HAMILTON was requested to print
his views, which he subsequently did in pamphlet
form,and submitted it to Mr.EvArtT3 and Mr. FIELD.
In 1859 he laid the plan of the *bill before Mr.
SEWARD (then Senator), who seemed to approve it,
and who introduced him to Senator WILSON of
Massachusetts, as the proper person to present such
a bill. Mr. WILSON consented to do so, and he
and Mr. SEWARD had many conferences on the
subject. On the 20th of February, 1859, Mr. WIL-
SON wrote that it was too late in the Session to
bring the bill forward. The threatened secession
then put the .subject in the background. In 1866,
however, Colonel HAMILTON renewed his efforts,
.and was introduced by Mr. SUMNER to Senator
HENDERSON, who entered ou the subject with great
earnestness awl zeal, and finally presented, and
secered the paslage of the law whieh Colonel.
lIA3IILTON had so long been urging, the present
'entire-of-Office Bill. The settion of the Ac:, which
established the office of Controller of the Currency,
whereby this officer cannot be rem y,red without the
consent of the Senate, passed early in the war, was
inserted at the suggestiowalso of Col. 11AmmoN."
The names of the gentlemen instrumental in em-
bodying Colonel IlimlLTON's opinions in the Act.
will be read with interest, as so many of them were
afterwards instrumental, to use O'CONNELL'S phrase,
"in driving a coach an 1 six through it." . Mr.
HENDERSON, of Missourri, who introduced it,
accpitted the PRESIDENT of a- crime in its direct in-
fringement. Mr. EVARTS was ANDREW JOHNSON'S
leading counsel ; Mr. 'TnustsuLL, of Illinois, also
vo'ed the acquittal of the PRESIDENT ; yet when
the Alt was first discussed in the Senate he said—
"The PRESIDENT has no authority to fill a vacancy
which exists in an office by himself without the ad-
vice and consent of. the Senate, unless that vacancy
occurs while the Senate is not in session ; and one
object of this amendment (introduced by himself)
is to prevent appointments of that character. I
deny that if a vacancy exists in an office while the
Senate is here the PRESIDENT has any power to fill
up that vacancy without the advice and consent of
the Senate. It takes the PRESIDENT and the Senate
both to make au officer." We do not question Se-
nator TRUMBULL'S right to express such opinions,
and yet to form a judgment wholly at variance
with them in his judicial capacity when the subject
came up in the form of a charge against the PRESI-
DENT. He may,and doubtless does, agree with us that
the PRESIDENT should .not hold the power of dismis-
sal and appointing ad interim officers while the Senate
is in Session. The period of which we write was the
30th April, 1866, and the deb tte on the Senate to
which we allude was remarkable for a prediction
by Mr. REVERDY JOHNSON. He said, " The Se-
nate of the United States or both branches of Con-
gress may become so diasatisfiel with the PRESI-
DENT of the United States as to be exceedingly,
anxious to get rid of him. His remaining in office
may interfere with some favourite policy of Congress.
'Congress may look to political measures upon which,
as they suppose, the • welfare of the country de-
pends, and find that they cannot aeconplish their
purpose in having such measures adopte .1 as long the
incumbent of the Presidential office is in his seat.
There are two ways to get rid of him : one is to
impeach him ; that requires to be successful a vote
in the boly of two-thirds ; another is to starve him
out, and that may be accomplished by refusing to
pay his salary." . It is now practically conceded
that the failure of the Court has confirmed
the right of the PRESIDENT to remove his Cabinet
officers even during the session of Congress, but
this arbitrary authority is comparatively unobjec-
tionable. It is not the right of removal to which
we so strongly demur, but the right of appointment
to the great State offices. No PRESIDENT should be
compelled to work with a Cabinet Minister wholly
obnoxious to him, but the power of appointment
nvolv,s far weightier considerations than the per-
sonal feelings of a President, or even the smooth
working of the Government machinery. Whether
the PRESIDENT'S acquittal establishes the principle
or not, we have every expectation that Mr. JENCKES'S
Civil Service Reform will be carried, and will so
destroy bureaucracy and patronage as in a large
measure to render innocuous such a power, if fully
acquired by Presidents. The enorrnms p.ltronage
of the Cabinet officers renders them despotic in their
offices, and while the PRESIDENT cin at pleasure
make and unmake these little kings, through them
his influence is overwhelming. But let the Civil
Service be permanent, the offices being held during
good behaviour, and even though the PREIDENT re-
tained the right of appointment ad interim, the
chief officers, being shorn of their despotic authority,
would lessen the danger of abuse. It is, perhaps,
in Mr. JENCKES'S Bill that we must look for the best
solution of the difficulty, and we are glad to see that
it meets with a support so hearty throhghout the
nation.