Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-01-24

tirency Patrick Henry was against TIC uiloh
ofthe purse and the sword in the hands OF the
General Government; it was the whole power OF
the country; and under such union, hDerty
was gone His argument was, that Il, when the
nurse and sword are in the hands OF the entire
Government, checked and balanced as II is Dy
means of its various departments, there Is sun
danger. how much more immense when they
are i'm the hand of one of them, when all ala not
furnish a competent security for liberty.
And on another branchof the subject, allow
Here Mr.. CLAY sad that in his remarks on
the union of the purse and sword IN tne hano anu
of the President he did not ailude soiely 70 ms
seizure of the public money, but to the power
which he had claimed and exercised, OF saying
| m one Secretary. You must get out OF ONCE,
If Won will not do as bid you;" and to another
officer, 6 dismiss you, unless you consentto De
governed and controlled by me-"
1t still seems to me, confined Mr.. HIVES, tildl
the Senator's quotation from Henry, is not APP
plicable to the removal Of the public deposltes;
and understood the Senator'S remark to relate
To this particular act; that it was violating the
Constitution by putting in the hands OF one
man, the power ofthe purse and sword; that II
these powers were dangerous in the hands OF
the whole Government they were much more
SO in the hands of an individual; and that II was
not improperly said, that by the removal OF the
public deposites, they were so consolidated l.
wish to show that Henry alluded to the power OF
the purse and the sword in the hands OF the ma
nv; and to designate the object to which MS
remarks should be applied, submitting tor that
object ministerial power, in supposlng col
fusion by means of the public money, when Elk
ecutive officers receive and disburse it accord
ing to law. 1t is another matter, If the Senator
sllpposes there is danger in relation TO the dli-
ties of the Executive officers of this sort; all his
argument on this point came forty years too
late, and all that are applied against the power
of removal.
There is not one argument brought against
the Presidents going to an officer and saying,
Z" remove you, unless you do so and so"-not
one, which was not urged in $780, against that
power of removal. As TO the Presidents abuse
ofpower will not say that he may not abuse
it; but the single responsibility OF the President,
looked to controlling the whole Executive de-
partment and his responsibility as to the duties
of that department, was considered as secu-
fity for the liberty and good of the country;
and in that light it was regarded by Mr. Madl-
son.
Sir, permit me to advert to another constitu-
tional opinion, expressed by the Senator from
Kentucky He not only asserts that the Presi-
dent has wrested the purse from the hands OF
Congress, but that there is another garing usur
patton, in wrestling also from them all power
over the Executive department The cOnstltu-
ton has devolved on the President the EXecu-
tive department. The Senator has commented
on that, and has decided that the constitution
devolved upon him no such control Of EXecu-
tive authority; that it is not from the constitu-
ton, but from law; that in particular cases he
has such control over the State, War; Treasury
and Navy departments as was given him by law;
that far tho Law has given ii he has if, hnf
not from them constitution.
Sir, here is fundamental error, which must
be corrected-that the people and ourselves may
have a just notion of the Constitution. | am
not an advocate of Executive power, but am
engaged in discussion on the Constitution; and
the Constitution vests the whole Executive pow
er in one person. There were various PROPOSE
tons in the Convention for framing the Const-
tuition; one was for an individual Executive;
another for plural Executive; the plural was
presented under different forms: all were con-
sidered, weighed, and discussed, but the deter
mination was-that the public liberty and good
required a unity of responsibility in one man.;
| therefore they vested the whole Executive re-
SponSibility in one person; and 1t was so vested
on the principle, that there would be the highest
security of public liberty, in one Chief Magis-
trate. As a consequence of the responsibility
of the President, in regard to the Executive de-
| partments, he has the power of controlling in
speeding, and placing substitutes for Executive
officers. This power OF superintendent and
control was SO explicitly recognized in the de-
bates of $780, at the first Congress after the
adoption of the Constitution, that | refer the
Senate to them.
Sir, in what language could Madison, and
every interpreter of the Constitution, more
plainly express that one Chief Mag iStrate is re-
sponsible for the Executive department, and on
the principle that it was under his control and
responsibility for liberty and the public good?
Mr.. Ames says, the President has the response
biiy for the greater security of the liberty ofthe
American people; say responsibility, for it i'm
plies the power of control in the President, and
the trainers of the Constitution would not make
the President responsible without control. The
Congress of 1899 acted on the ground that the
responsibility was in the Presidents and the Con-
stitution necessarily gives him the power of
control
Sir the Senator alleges that he has made ma
ny researches, and his friends have made them
| for him. also have made some, though have
not had the benefit of friendly assistance; and |
beg leave to present few extracts from the de-
bates of 1889. Madison" There is no danger
| in the choice of Executive officers by the Sc
nate; they may choose on the nomination of the
Executive, who constitutionally has supervi-
sion and control over them" Mr.. Lawrence
g In the departments, the Executive determines
the source of CONTROL" &c. Ames-" The Elk
1 - III