The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1836-04-15

investigation which belongs 10 il, q PRO-
DaiIlelf and controlling iiaquirv Il "a 10
hs intention Nth pAiek The act .pas |
committed. An examination Of lhis kind |
can only Be gone into by the Senate |
when sitting . cours Of impeachment;
hpi with this single exception. | MAINTAIN |
that this body, in is legislative and in lis |
executive capacity, can 20 into an inyes-
iigaiion OF flle legality Of acts, and their
tendency. just - freely Is If no judicial |
authority was conferred on il. We're il
otherwise. is legislative power would
be most iniuriously abridged. and the ere.
cnfivs portion could moi be bene6cIalIy
exercised. Indeed. il 10 only necessary
% have the contrary principle establish
ed. and the Chief Magistrate would get
power IN his hands which would enable
him efectually 70 put stop To all legs
la,lon on matters in regard 10 which he
Thought proper 70 resort % the exercise
of Executive authority. Bur. If | UNDER
stand the Constitution rightly. il was no,
intended the legislative functions Of this
body should be placed under The control
Of any "Iher branch Of the Government.
My reading Of II 10. that in the use Of
them II Is not more confined in is sphere,
nor less free in lis action, Than The House
Of Representatives.
See. Mr.. President. 10 what consequen.
ces the contrary doctrine would lead.
Congress is almost constantly passing
laws which require the exercise Of Exc
culive authority 10 carry them into effect;
the President conslrues them according
To his judgment, and executes then. The
Legislature tske the matter into consid-
Grafton: they think he has assumed a
power which the law did not confer. and
the exercise Of which is injurious TO the
public interests. A bill il introduced TO
correct The evil. Il the Senate estopped
from acsing on IL. because, forsooth. u is
compelled TO lonk intn the construction
given BY the President Of the Law, and
finds that il differs in opimon from him!
Gan il extend no remedy for the mischief
because he has done wrong!
In an early period ii the federal legis.
lalion. an act was passed authorizing the
President 81 The United Stairs IA remove
from the public lands persons who had
settled there without PERMISSION. twas
intended tn operate on the class of per.
sons yulgarly but emphaIically called
sp,taf'ers. In the year 1906 n think. J
Mr.. Jefferson enforced this law against a
possession which Edward Livingston had
OF portion of lhe bstsuie in front vi the
city Of New Orleans. 10 this property
Mr.. l.. asserted title under grant Of the
French Government to the society oi Je-
suits His right was contested bv the
CITY If New Orleans. and by proprlesors
of the lots in front Of the river, holding
under the same grant II is not necessa.
~ TO say. If il were easy 10 do so, which
had the better u,le; il is enough 10 state
that the property did not belong 10 the
United States. and thai the act ot remo-
val. however good the motives ot the
President, and | do not impearh them,
was most illegal, and in ats operation OPP
pressive in the extreme. An action was
brought against Nr Jefferson for this act,
and the cause dismissed for want of lu'
risdiction in the court. on the ground that
the trespass vas committed in Louisiana
and the trespasssr lived In Virginia.
Now | ask, sir, ii Mr.. Livingston had
applied, as well he might. To Congress
for compensation for the great pecuniary
losses which he sustained by this act of
the President. could the Senate not have
acted on the bill for affnrGing relief. be-
cause il must necessarily have decided
that the President had done an act. in
the language of the resolution of the Sc.
nate, j" not conferred BY The constitution
and laws, but in derogation OF both!"
If gentlemen on the other side say il
could not have acted on such bill. he.
cause il must have decided on a matter
which might thereafter come before il on
an impeachment for the act. leave the
correctness of the answer 10 be decided
by the American people without any
comment of mine. And If their answer
be that il could have constitutionalIy pas.
sed such a law, inquire what difference
| there il between deciding that an act Of
the President was contrary to law. and
giving relief for il. aud making declara>
ton to the same effect in the shape of a
resolution!
| The contest between the present Chief
Magistrate and the Bank of the United
States is nearer to our own times. and Of
fers an example equally illustrative of,he
ground | assume. BY its charter, the
United States engaged to place with ii in
deposi,e the public moneys. The Pre-
sident though. he had the power to with
draw them whenever he pleased. and
without any cause save his own pleasure.
The Senate think differently; and with
out stopping tn inquire which party is
right. AL could Snt hill have been
cunstitu,log ,.t aa.s, Il uere Ia compel