Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-03-17

"a. The commiflion. To grant q
colnmifion to perlon appointed, night
perhaps be deemed daty, injoined by
The contribution. He ihall,' iays that
inHrument commiiiion all the ohiceEs OF
the United States
The acts Of appointing to Office, and
commil,ioning the perfon appointed, can
lcarcely be conhdesed as one and the fame !;
Gnce the power TO perform theu is given
1.-Two feparate and dil}intt iettlons .ot The
cenaitation. The diainetion between the
appointment ahdeomnidion, will be rem
dered more apparent, by adverting TO
thar proviion in the I'd fiction OF the "a
article of the conaisution, which authorizes
Congrels, 10 vef, by law, the appoint
meat of fuch inferior officers, as they
think proper, 10 the PRECEDENT alone, IN
the courts OF law, or in the heads OF
departments ;; thus contemplating cafes
where the law may direct the Pfeldent 70
commiGion an officer appointed by the
courts or heads of departments. In tuch
cafe, 10 ilIue a commiAion would be ap-
parently duty diitintt from the appoint
ment, the performance OF which, perhaps,
could not legally be rsfutcd.
Although that cIauie Of the contribution
which requires the PreGdent to commliiion
all rhe officers OF the United States, may
never hare ben applied to officers aP
pointed otherwiie Shanby himlelf, yet 1t
would be difficult to deny the Legislative
| power to apply it TO fuch cafes. Oh con-
iequence the conititutional difinttion
between the appointment to an Office and
the commiilion of an officer, who has
been appointed, remains the fame as if in
practice the Pfefidenr had commiliioned
officers appointed by ain authority other
than his own.
II follows too, from the exiaence of
the ditinttion, that, if an appointment
WIS to be evidenced by any public ats,
other than the commilion, the perform
ance of fuch public act would Create the
officer and if he was no. removable at
The will of the PEeiident, would either
give him righe to his commiilion, Or en-
able him to perform the duties without
it.
Thefe obfervaiions are preEniied foley
for the purpofe Of rendering more lptelii-
gible thofe which apply more direct
| " to the particular cafe under conhdera-
ton.
This is an appointment made by the
PRECEDENT by and with the advite and con
| fent of the Senate, ana is evidenced by no
act bur the commiliion itielf. In fnch a
cafe therefore the coulniiiion and the ap-
| pointmeut feem inieFarable l. being 81
mott impofliole to fhow an appointment
otheruife than by proving theexiaence Of
| commiiiion; till the commiGion is not
| neceRarily the appointment; tho conclu-
FIVE evidence Oft.
But At what itage does it amount to
this conclnGye evidence
The anfwer to this qaeifion feems an
obvious one. The appointment, being
the loie aGt Of the Prchdear, mutt be CON-
pletely evidenced, when il is lhewn that
he has done every thing 10 be performed
by him.
Should the commiilion, infead of be-
ing evidence Of an appointment, even be
conddered as continuing the appointment
! itfelf; Gill il would be made when the
Lat at to be done by the Prehdent was
performed, or, at fuftheR, when the CON-
| milton was complete.
/ The lait att to be done by the Pref
dent, is the fignature of the commillion.
He has then acted on the advile and con-
| tent of the Senate TO his own nomination.
| The time for deliberation was then paiied.
| He has decided. His judgment, on tie
advice and content of the Senate concur
| ring with bis nomination, has been made
| and the officer is appointed. This APP
| poinrment is evidenced by an open, .une-
| quivocal aef and heing the laf act re-
u In