Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-05-08

never passed an act imperatively directing
that the public moneys shall be kept in '
any particular place or places. From the
origin Of the governmental the year 1916,
the statute book was wholly silent on the
subject. In 1889 treasurer was created,
subordinate to the secretary of the treasu-
ry, and through him to the president. He
was required to give bond, safely to keep,
and faithfully to disburse the public mon
|eys, without any direction as to the man.
ner or places in which they should be
kept. By reference to the practice of the
government, it is found, that from its first
Organization, the secretary of the treasury,
acting under the supervision of the presi-
dent. designated the places in which the
public moneys should be kept, and spe-
cally directed all transfers from place to
place. This practice was continued, with
the silent acquiescence of congress, from
1889 down to 1916; and although many
banks were selected and discharged, and
although portion Of the moneys were first
placed in the state banks, and then in the
former bank of the United States, and up
on the dissolution of that, were again trans
f ferred to the state banks, no Legislation
f was thought necessary by congress, and
all the operations we're originated and per-
fected by executive authority. The secre-
} tfry of the treasury, responsible to the
: president, and with his appreciation, made
e contracts and arrangements in relation to
3 the whole subject matter, which was thus
$ entirely committed 10 the direction of the
/. president, under his responsibilities to the
+ American people, and to those who were
e authorized to impeach and punish him
for any breach of this important trust
# The act of ZIG, establishing the ba nk
: Of the United States, directed the deposites
l. of public money to be made in that bank
n and its branches, IN places in which the
1t said bank and branches thereof may be
ID established, "unless the secretary of the
to treasury should otherwise order and direct
lg| in which event, he was required to give
I'd his reasons to congess. This was but a
n continuation of his Fe-existing powers as
p the head of an executive department, tc
at direct where the depsites should be made
of with the superaddee obligation of giving
I'd his reasons to congrss for making them
OF elsewhere than in he bank of the United
~ States and its bractes. 1t is not to be
lie considered that thi provision in any de.
n gree altered the rehtion between the sec.
is rotary OF the treasry and the president
er as the responsible head of the executive
es department, or released the latter from hi.
il constitutional Obligations to stake care
is that the laws be faithfully executed" Or
= the contrary, it increased his responsible
" ties, by adding another to the long list o
he gws which it was his duty to carry into
lie dfect.
$, II would be an extraordinary result
,-hf, because the person charged by Law
2 with apublc duty, is one of the secre
: tarles, it we're less the duty Of the pres
? ? Ident to see that law faithfully executed
than other laws .enjoinipg duties upor
subordinate officers or private citizens
:, II there be any difference, it would seen
y that the obligation is the stronger in re
q lation to the former, because the neglec
is in his presence, and the remedy a
$ band.
: 1t cannot be doubted that it was the
legal duty Of the secretary of the treas
= ury to order and direct the deposites of thu
!, public money to be made elsewhere than il
r the bank of the United States, whenever
: sufficient reasons existed for making the
change. If, in such case, he neglected
or refused to act, he would neglect or re-
: fuse to execute the law. What would Their
be the sworn duty of the president? Gould
he say that the constitution did not bind
him to see the law faithfully executed, be.
cause it was one of his secretaries and moi
, himselfupon whom this service was special
ly imposed2 Might he not be asked wheth-
, er there was any such limitation to his oh.
t legations prescribed in the constitutional
Whether he is not equally bound to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed
whether they impose duties on the highest
officer of state, or the lowest subordinate
, in any Of the departments? Might he moi
be told, that it was for the sole purpose OF
causing all executive officers, from the high.
t est to the lowest, faithfully to perform the
> services required of them by law-that the
people of the United States have made him
their chief magistrate and the constitution
has clothed him with the entire executive
power of this government? The principles
implied in these questions appear too plain
to need calculation.
II But here, also, we have cotemporane-