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

THE TENURE-OF•OFFICE ACT.

. (Froin the Anglo-American Times.)
The history of the Tenure-of-Office Bill—if the
New York Tribune's correspondent be correct—
shows that the measure wss not framed merely as a
check on ANDREW JOHNSON, but resulted from the
deep thought of a gentleman who had studied con-
stitutional law, and desired to rectify the evil of the
1 inordinate patronage conferred on the PRESIDENT.
We have always expressed a strong conviction that
the power of removal and of ad interim appoint-
ments is one that no constitutional ruler ought to
be allowed to exercise unchecked. Colonel J. A.
HAMILTON, son of the celebrated ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, after long study of constitutional law,
arrived at the conclusion that not only was it inex-
pedient that a President should exercise this power,
but that legally he could not remove without the
consent of the Senate. The correspondent traces
the history of the Act as follows : —" In order to
subject his (Colonel ll.teriteroN'e) views to discus-
sion, a dinner party of gentlemen, more or less in-
terested in such questions, was arranged at his
house on the sHudson River, in alcember, 1858.
There were present Messrs. D. D. FIELD, AVM,
EVARTS, C. A. D kNA. (then editor of the Tribune),
E. L. GODICIN (now editor of the Na.tion), C. L.
Bee.cE, and others. Messrs. RAYMOND and BRYANT
were invited, but were not ab!e to be present.
After the cloth was remav,id Colonel IlAerturox, in
his remarkably cle•Lr style, presented his argument,
referring to the Federalist, No. 77, the debates on
the Act establishing the State department, and
other documents. All the persons present seemed
to agree that the argument was sound, and that
they would do all in their power to secure the pas-
sage of an Act requiring removals as well as appoint-
ments to be made ' by and with the consent of the
Senate.' The only objection offered was the prac-'
tin' ono that no political party could eyes be in‘.

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.EvAwrs 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
Masia,chusetts, 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 Ilamitsrox renewed his efforts,
and was introduced by Mr. SUMNER to Senator
HENDERSON, who entered oa the subject with great
earnestness and zeal, an I finally presented and
secured the passage of the law which Colonel
llamturoN had so long been urging, the present
Tenure-of-Office Bill. The section of the Act Which
established the office of Controller of the Currency,
whereby this officer cannot be removed without the
consent of the. Senate, passed early in the war, was
inserted at the suggestion also of Col. HA HILTON."
The names of the gentlemen instrumental in em-
bodying Colonel HAMILTON'S opinions in the Act
Will be read with interest, as so many of them.were
afterwards instrumental, to use, O'CosTNELL's phrase,
"in driving a coach anl six through it." Mr.
1-lEsmErisoN, of Missourri, who introduced it,
aeq'iitted the PRESIDENT of a crime in its direct in-
fringement. Mr. EVARTS was ANDREW JOHNSON'S
leading counsel ; Mr. Tnuensur.r., of Illinois, also
vwed the acquittal of the PRESIDENT • yet when
the Act was first disca333.l in the Senate' he said—
" The PRESIDENT has no authority to fill-a vacancy
which exists in an offi ee by himself without the ad-
vice and consent of the S3nate, unless that vacancy
occurs while the Senate is not in session ; and one
object of this amendin !tit (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 Tnuainum.'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 debate 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 branclp. of Con-
gress may become so dissatisfied with the PRESI-
DENT of the United States as to be exceedingly
anxious to gat rid of him. His remaining in office
may interfere with some favourite policy of Congress.
Congress my look to political measures upon which,
as they suppose, the welfare of the country de-
pends, and find that they cannot accomplish their
purpose in having such measures adopted 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 body 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
evolves 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 enornalus patronage
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. Bat 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. JENCICES'S Bill that we must look Lr the best
solution of the difficulty, and we are glad to see that
it meets with a support so hearty throughout the
nation.