The Arkansas advocate., 1834-05-30

lS. l- zines, and stefehotises, it s1siaeiliieyesi tllai such an act would be regarded by all as a Faipable usurpation of Executive power. subversiFe of tho form as well as the fun damentalpFiuciples of our Government bpt, where Is the difference K pliaeinle. whether the public properly be in the form of arms, munitions of war, and supplies, or in gold and silver, or bank notes. None can De perceived, none is believed to exist.-- Congress cannot, therefore, take out of the hands Of the Executive Department, the custody of the public property or money. without an assumption of Executive power, and snbyersion of the first principles of the constitution.
 The Congress of the United States have never passed an act imperaiigelY directing that the public moneys shall be kept in any particular place or places. From the ori- gin of the Government 10 the year 1916, the statute book was wholly silent on the subject. In I783 a Treasurer was created subordinate to the Secretary of Treasury, and through him to the President. lie was required to give bond, safely to keeo, and faithfully to disburse the public moneys, without any direction as to the manner and place i'll which they should be kept By reference to the practice of the Government, 1t is found, that from its first organization, the Secretary of, the Treasury, acting under tho supervision of the Presideff, designated the places in which the public moneys should he kept, and specially directedlall transfers from place to place. This practice was continued, with the silent acdliescence of Congress, from l799 down 10 1Sl6; and although many banks were selected and discharged, and although portion of the moneys were placed in the State Banks, and then in the former Banlzofthe United States, and upon the dissolution of that, wero again transferred to theI State Banks, no legislation was thought necessary by Congress, and all the operations were oFi- ginated and perfected by Executive authori- ty. The Secretary of the Treasury, re- sponsible to the President, and with his ap- probation, made contracts and arrange ments in relation to the whole subject mat ter, which was thus entirely committed 10 the direction of the President, under his re- responsibilities to the American people, and 10 those who were authorized 10 inlpeach and punish him for any breach of this im- portant trust.
 The act of 1sl6, establishing ihe Bank of the United States, directed the depostes of public money to be made in that bank and it's branches, in places in which the said bank and hranehes fheraelt:.sas y De esa fti5Iished, "ui8iess tae secretary U tIe Treasury should otherwise order and di- rect" iii which event, he was required 10 give his reasons to Congress. This was a continuation of his pre-existing powers as the Head of the Executive Department, to direct where the deposites should be made, with the superadded obligation of giving his reasons to Congress for making them else- where than in the Bank of the United States and its branches. It Is not to be consider ed that this provision in any degree altered the relation between the Secretary of the Treasury and the President as the respon- sible Head of the Executive Department, or released the latter from his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faith fully executed. On the contrary it inereas- ed his responsibilities, by adding another to the long list of laws which 1t was his duty to carry into effect.
 It would be an extraordinary result, if, because the person charged by law with q public duty, Is one of the Secretaries, 1t were less the duty of the President to see that law faithfully executed, than other laws enioning duties upon subordinate officers or private citizens. If there beany difference, t would seem that the obligation IS the stronger in relation to the former, because the neglect is in his presence, and the re- medy at hand.
 It cannot be doubted that it was the legal duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to order and direct the deposltes of the public money to be made elsewhere than i'll the Rank of the United States, arheners4, snti- etent reason erisied for mahiag thc change. 1 If, in such a case, he neglected or refused 10 act. he would neglect or refuse to execute i the law. What would then be the sworn duty of the President? Could he say that the Constitution did not bind him to see the law faithfully executed because 1t Was one of his secretaries, and not himself upon whom the service was specially inposed!--
 M;oht he not be asked whether there was any such limitation 10 his obligations pre- scribed in thB Constitution? Whether he is not equally bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, whether they 1 impose duties on the highest officers o
 sssta.e. sta.e CT the forrest subordinate II. any o
 the departments Might he not be tolt
 that 1t was for the sole purpose cs causing all executive officers from the highest to the
 lowest. faithfullyto performthe services re ]. ouirea of them by laW--that the people Q 1 inc 4Jnited States have made him tfeir Chic