Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-04-19

preach OF this important trust.
The act of 1916, establishing the Bank of the
United States, directed the deposites of public
money to be made in that bank and its branch
es, in places in which the said bank and branch
es thereof may be established, unless the Sc
cretary of the Treasury should otherwise order
and direct" in which event, he was required to
give his reasons to Congress This swas but
continuation of his pre-existing powers as the
Head of an Executive Department. to direct
where the deposites should be made, with the SUI
peradded obligation of giving his reasons to
Congress for making them elsewhere than in
the Bank of the United States and its branches
Its MOTTO be considered that this provision in
any degree altered the relation between the Sc
cretary of the Treasury and the President, as
the responsible Head of the Executive Depart
ment, or released the latter from his constitu-
tional obligation to stake care that the laws be
faithfully executed" On the country, it increas
ed his responsibilities, by adding another to the
long list of laws which it was his duty to carry
into effect.
1t would be an extraordinary result, if be-
cause the person charged by law with apubc
duty, is one of the Secretaries, it were less the
duty OF the President to see that law faithfully
executed, than other laws enjoining duties up
on subordinate officers or private citizens If
there be any difference, it would seem that the
obligation is the stronger in relation to the for
mer, because the neglect is in his presence and
the remedy at hand.
1t cannot be doubted that it was the legal du-
ty of the Secretary of the Treasury to order and
direct the deposites of the public money to be
made elsewhere than in the Bank of the United
States, lchenerer sufficient reasons eristed for
making the change. If in such case he neg
ected or refused to act he would neglect or re-
fuse to execute the law. What then would be
the sworn duty of the President2 Could he say
that the constitution did not bind him to see the
law faithfully executed, because it was one of
his Secretaries, and not himself upon whom the
service was specially imposed? Might he not
be asked whether there was any such limitation
to his obligations prescribed in the Constitu-
ton? Whether he is not equally bound to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed, whe-
Their they impose duties on the highest officer Of
State, or the lowest subordinate in any Of the
Departments? Might he not be told, that it was
for the sole purpose ofcausing all executive of
ficerS, from the highest to the lowest, faithfully
to perform the services required of them by law
that the People ofthe United States have made
him their Chief Magistrate, and the constitution
has clothed him with the entire Executive pow
er ofthis Government? The principles implied
in these questions appear too plain 10 need elu-
cidation.
But here, also, we have cotemporaneous
construction ofthe act, which shows that it was
not understood as in any way changing the re-
the Treasury, or as placing the latter out of Ex-
ecutve control, even in relation to the deposites
fthe public money. Nor on this point are we
left to any equivocal testimony. The docu-
ments of the Treasury Department show that
the Secretary of the Treasury did apply to the
President, and obtain his appreciation and sane
ton to the original transfer of the public depo-
sites to the present Bank of the United States
and did carry the measure into effect in obedi-
ence to his decision They also show that trans
fers of the public deposites from the Branches of
the Bank of the United States to State Banks
at Chilicothe, Cincinnati, and Louisville, in
1919, were made with the appreciation of the
President, and by his authority. They show
that upon all important questions appertaining
| to his Department whether they related to the
public deposites or other matters it was the con-
| slant practice of the Secretary ofthe Treasury
| TO obtain for his acts the approval and sanction
! of the President These acts, and the prnc-
| pies on which they were founded, were known
to all the departments Of the Government, to
Congress, and the country; and, until very re-
Gently, appear never to have been called in
question.
! Thus was it settled by the constitution the
! laws, and the whole practice the government
| that the entire Executive power is vested in the
| President of the United States; that as incident
to that power, the right of appointing and re-
moving those officers who are to aid him in the
execution OF the laws, WIN SuCn restrictions on
ly as the constitution prescribes is vested in the
President; that the Secretary ofthe Treasury is
one Of those officers; that the custody Of the
public property and money is an executive func-
ton, which, in relation to the money, has al
ways been exercised through the Secretary of
the Treasury and his subordinates; that in the
performance of these duties, he is subject to the
supervision and control of the President, and in
all important measures having relation to them
consultS the Chief Magistrate, and obtains his
approval and sanction; that the law establish
ing the Bank did not, as it could not, change the
relation between the President and the Secre-
tary-did not release the former from his obi
CATION to see the law faithfully executed, nor the
latter from the Presidents supervision and con-
troll; that afterwards, and before, the Secretary
did in fact consult, and obtain the sanction Of
the President, to transfers and removals of the
public deposites; and that all departments Of
the Government, and the nation ITSELF APPROX
ed or acquiesced in these acts and principles,
az in strict conformity with our constitution and
laws.
During the last year, the approaching termi-
nation, according to the provisions of its char
ter, and the solemn decision of the American
People of the Bank of the United States, made
it expedent, and its exposed abuses and corrup-