Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-06-07
Extracts from Mr.. Garlo.@s Speech in reply to
Mr.. Bell, Concluded.

Extracts from Mr.. Garlo,.3's Speech in reply to
Mr.. Bell, Concluded. q.
Mr.. Chairman, it was q leading object
in the formation of our Government to di.
vide it into three separate and independent
departments Legislative, executive, and ju-
dicial-leayirg each, as far as practicable,
uncontrolled and untrammellcd in its action
by the interference Of the other. This sir.
is constitutional division and a constitu.
tional object; the principle has been sane.
toned by our most distinguished patriots
and statesmen. The executive power is
placed in the hands Of the President by the
Constitution; and however unwise the in
vestment, if it be so, he cannot be divested
of it but by constitutional amendment.
Among the most efficient powers vested by
the Constitution in the President, is the
power ofremoval from office. The impor-
tancc attached to this executive power is
well illustrated by the fact that, in the first
session of Congress after the formation of
the Constitution, a provision attached to the
bill organizing the State Department, au.
thorizing the President to remove the Sec
retary from Office at pleasure, was stricken
out, on the ground that the power was uncon-
stitutional, and could not be conferred by
law. The proposition to strike out that
provision gave rise 70 long and able debate,
in which the question whether the power Of
removal was derived from the Constitution
or not, was ably and elaborately discussed.
Mr.. Madison, who participated largely in
that debate, said, while discussing the Presi.
dents power ofremoval:
"But there is another part ofthe Consti-
tuition which inclines, in my judgment, to
form the construction | put upon it. The
President is required to take care that the
hscs be faithfully erecuted. the duty to
see the ldws faithfully executed be required at
the hands Of the Erecutire Magistrate, it
would seem that it was generally intended he
should have that species Of pover nhich IS
necessary to accomplish that end. Now, if
the officer appointed is not to depend upon
the President for his official existence, but
upon distinct body, confess | do not see
how that the President can take care that
the laws be faithfully executed" In the
same speech he said, eff any thing in its
nature is executive, it must be that power
which is employed in experimenting and
seeing that the lars are Faithfully executed" :"
Again, Mr.. Madison said: 81 think it
absolutely necessary that the President
should have the power ofremoval from Of
flee; it will make him in peculiar manner
responsible for their conduct, and subject him
to impeachment himself ifhc suffer them to
pcrpetrate, with impunity, high crimes and
misdemeanors against the United States, or
neglect to superintend their conduct so as to
check their excesses. On the constitution
ality Of the declaration, have no manner Of
dobbt."
Mr.. Giles, in Il debate in 1902, upon the
judiciary bill, expressed the same opinion.
He said:
<'In relation to newspaper scrbblers. Mr..
Jefferson once said, Let them stand undlS-
turbcd as monuments of the safety with
which error of opinion may be tolerated,
where reason is left free to combat it. L"
Mr.. Giles. "The President is authorized
without limitation, to commission oil the of.
ficers of the United States. The question
arises, by what tenure? The reply is, ac-
cording to his pleasure or discretion. 1t
was not difficult to foresee that ifthe Presi.
dent was fully empowered to commission as
he pleased, he would commission during his
pleasure. The Legislature has no more
control over an officer who holds an Execu.
tive commission, during the pleasure Of the
President, than over a judicial officer, hold
ing his office during good behavior-the
remedy given by the Constitution being the
same in both cases, 10 wit, impeachment.
Nor is there any reason why the Office Of
the one should be less subject to the discre-
ton Of the Legislature than the office ofthe
other: and it seems to be universally agreed
that, although the Legislature cannot de-
ptive an Executive officer Of his office in
any other way than by impeachment during
the continuance of such office, yet the of.
fee is always subject to be abolished. The
same reasoning will hold with equal force
respecting a Judge and judicial officer.
The reason why the Executive is proscri-
bed from the removal Of a Judge, is, to Sc
cure to the Judge the complete independence
Of the President, who is not Irresponsible for
the discharge ofiudicial duties; but the re-
moval is perfectly correct in the case Of On
Executive officer, because the President is
highly responsible for the due discharge of
Executive duties. The Legislature is not
responsible for either. and, ofcourse, stands
in the same constitutional relation to both.
There is the same remedy against both
impeachment
The late eminent Judge Tucker, Of Vir.
gina, expressed the same opinion. In the
Ii, ,,,on RIonl.