Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1830-04-19

u'us' occur inat as his authority 10 remove can
be exercised only for cause, there must be some
tribunal 10 inquire into aud ascertain al cause
regard thus right though denied by the gen
uenHh rom tennessee, as necessary incident
OF the advisory power OF the Senate. We know
well that there is a great dividing lice between
us IN that body. One party here denies our
constitutional right to put such Troublesome
questions, or 10 test any part Of the ground
work OF our great and gltrious reform. We
want TO learn little OF the rationale of this on.
eralion. We have been all along as YOU tell
us, benshted and in the dark. Give us light.
lhen, We say. We consider ourselves bound 10
advise the Chef Magistrate Ia hls appoint
IN nts We are not restricted 10 mere ex-
preston of consent 10, or dissent from his nom
Ihation. We may, aye, must go further. II
you ask ME whether will consent 10 a choice
which you alone can make may answer
yes. But il you ask me whether will adrist
you So to a choice might point YOU 10 better
The words ddrtce and consent are not syuony.
nous their meaning is essentially different.
Consent rs the mere agreement of the MUD 10
what is proposed by another. .idCicC ordinari.
iy implies the recommendation of same ouln
ion, the Offering Of some information worthy
TO be weighed aud acted upon bv another
The gentleman from Tennessee, expressing an
litlcal friends here, denies the constitutional
right OF the Senate TO examine into and Judge
Of the proprely of removals from office
aud declares that our p0icer IS confined 10 The
question Of fiaeSS or Ugttnes Of The person nom
iHnied 10 succeed Now If a be removed from
Office, and B nominated to supply the vacancy,
were only our consent asked ON the appoint
| ment of we might possibly, adopting his con
strnctlon, vote aye when, II we are asked
whether we would ddUise as well as consent TO
the appointment, we might answer mo we
know a Thousand better meG !; though we do
not think the nomination abs oluey unfit We
think the man removed is better man II is
said however, that we must restrict oar advice
to tbs nomination before us, aud that if we go
beyond that, i is advice unasked. | answer
that even if | am, as his adviser, 10 consult the
interests Of the President alone I cannot al
ways know whether 3 will really suit his pur-
poses, until learn why has been removed.
and thus ascertain what his purposes are. lie
NAV be deceived either in the character or
qualifications of his nominee. and we, knowing,
perhaps, more about them than the Presiden,,
if bound to look 10 his interests alone ought to
advise him Of his error. Is II our object o al.
wise him to Apo such persons as will ag
gTandize himself or sustain III; party lie NAV
have recommended Que OF the opposite part, 10
supply the vacancy occasoned by The removal
OF his own party man. Win view 10 his in
terest, then, as his adriser, we ought, suppose.
to tell him So Well, inform him Of il, ami
he tells me in reply that he knew that, but has
dismissed his old friend because he has lost his
influence. Then if know it TO he a fact that
his nominee has lost his influence too, should
tell him So should | not How then, even
according To the views of those who think the
President is to consult his own pleasure, can we
he faithful advisers without asking in our con.
fidential way here, what that pleasure Is, or
terre,ing out the causes of his removals. On
the other hand if am 10 advise with an eye
single to the public good, which lake to be
my tue standard, | ought moi TO advise him TO
appoint when know that A. whom he has
removed, and can re-appolnt, is "a better man
foi the Office. Is il not then expehient ior Us
nav is it not some lines absolutely necessary
10 the proper discharge OF our adyIso y duties,
to learn why our servants have been dlsmis-
Sed And il so, where IS the clause 10 the
constitution which limits us III the exercise OF
these duties five have, as gentlemen say, no
constitutional right to inquire into the causes
of these removals. we have no power to lnvestI-
gate the proprlety OF appointments to I'LL the
vacancies for the first of these principles be-
ing conceded, the other will flow as cons
quence from the concession.
This makes the President independent of the
Senate in his appointing power, and OF course
of any other tribunal established by the con.
stiiulon. And the Senator oil New Hampshire
has reminded u.s. in discussing another topic OF
the debate, that MIR Jeherson's axiom OF eier-
nal truth in politics was, that whatever power
in any government is independent, is absolute
also apprehend, too, that this new Iesrc-
of duties
differs entirely from lhat adopted by all our
predecessors. True, their Executive records
show that the subject has not been moved on
every nomination the right TO exercise tue
power appears not 10 have been denied before,
and those records show US that the Senate has
o ften inquired into The prOpriety OF nomIna-
tons and of removals also When Robert Pnr-
dy memorial zed ;his body on the 18th OF Jan.
1922, representing, as he did that his removal
from the army had been Improperly made, and
charging expressly, that fayorltlsm with the
Pre-. lent had superseded the claims Of merit,
the Senate, instead of deciding against their
own power, or branding II as lnqusi' oral, ap'
pointed a committee TO investigate the whole
subject, and on the 18th o! April afterwards,
they, by resolution, called for the report OF the
board of general officers upon which the reduc.
ton and new arrangement Of the army had
Deen p'tu'Idteh
When Mr.. Monroe nominated Gadsden rs
Adufant General, and Towson and Fenwick as
Colonels, the Senate looked behind the nomi-
nations, and took cognisance OF the fact that
other officer were superseded and disbanded
as supernumerares and although, as appears
by the able reports OF the committee which IN
yetiealed the causes aud the legality Of the ar
ran cement they did ample justice to the merits
ofthese gallant officers Il admitted them 10 BE- td-
IN competent for The stations, 10 supply aOhich the
President had named them 10 the Senaie, yet the
nominations were not confirmed. Gadsden
and Towson we're rejected here on The 10Th OF
March, 1922. and the nomination of Fenwck
was then Withdrawn. The President after
wards renominated them to the Senate, when
the same Investigation was again made, the
! committee called on the War Department for
more full information the President assigned
| NIL his reasons in an elaborate message to the
Senate ; the committee reported against those
reasons. with full argument 10 refuie them
Il I,tl 10