Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1837-03-16

pleasure Of the collector, that he did not pos
sess fee simple estate therein, and was lia-
BILE to be removed whenever the collector
saw fit so TO do. OF this he may he does
not complain, but rests his case on the ground
that he was removed for opinions sake. But
would this make the case any better? Is not
the President Of the United States, and eve-
ry public officer within the reach of the peo-
pie, removed for opinions sake? 1t is true,
it has often been said, to remove merltorlous
officer is Il high misdemeanor, and that he who
makes a removal on that ground, makes an at
tack upon public liberty. Is this true? Is it
high msdemcanor for the sovereign p0,oer,
the people, to change their Chief Magistrate,
their Representatives in Congress, or any
other public servant who comes within the e.
lective franchise, for opinions sake'
If not, then it cannot be high misdemean-
or for an executive officer who has been con-
stitutcd such by the free suflrages of the peo-
pie, to remove n subatern officer who comes
within the reach of the appointing power Of
that executive officer. Cases might occur
when 1t would become an Indispensable duty
OF public officer who has been entrusted by
the people with high and responsible duties,
to remove an individual from Office for opln-
ions sake, and Immediately to supply that va
cancy with some one whose opinions shall CO.
incidc with those Of the executive officer
Such was the case relative to the removal of
the public deposites. There the subatern
officer disagreed in opinion with the Chief
Magistrate Of the United States, and in order
to carry into execution that great, ana to the
country all important, measure, itbecame nc
Icessary to remove the Secretary Of the Trea-
sury, and forthwith to supply the vacancy
coincided with that Of the Chief Magistrate,
so that the same could at once be carried in
to effect. If the President, under such cir
cumstances, had not made the removal which
he was compelled to make on that occasion,
he would have been guilty off great derelc-
ton of duty to his country.
\ The true rule is, that whenever and wher-
ever the popular will is farly,openly and un-
dcrstandngly expressed, that will ought to
be carried into execution, because it is the SOW
ereign will. Has this will been thus express
sed in the case now under considerations
I The memorialist states that soon after the
| appointment of Mr.. Littlefed, the present
collector, there was meeting of some Of the
people of that district, held for the purpose of
considering this subject at which list Of Of
cers Of the customs to be removed, as well
as Of those 10 be appointed to supply, their
places, was agreed upon. In pursuance of
the public expression which was then made,
the changes in the officers of the customs
were effected. Whether this meeting was
fair, open and full expression of majority of
the people of that district, does not appear
from the disclosures made in the above me-
mortal. The presumption is, however, that it
was, because, for aught appears nearly eve
md INyIIn mi tho lISf nc
satisfied with the result. IF this be true, the
collector, as well as the Secretary Of the
Treasury, are entirely blameless, because
they only carried into execution the will Of
those whose voice they had no right to dlsre.
gard.
Thus far the committee have proceeded up
on the ground that the memorialist was actu-
ally removed from Office, but this was not the
fact. The appointment of weigher and guag-
er he received from the late collector, Mr..
Ellery, and when Mr.. Ellery ceased to be
collector, he ceased to be weigher and guag-
er. The momcnt that collector resigned his
office, that moment the mcmorialist ceased to
be an officer of the customs. This principle
must be familiar to every individual who has
had any acquaintance with public AFFAIRS
At the close Of each Congress, all the officers
"hi,h ho'c oSSH oPpoiHtCu Wy tnc oCHdtc "Hu
House of Representatives, close their politi-
cal existence. This must, from The very ma
ture Of things, be the case with all delegated
power, unless there be special provision made
by law TO the contrary. In the case now un-
der consideration there is no such provision.
To establish this point, reference is made to
the opinion Of Mr. Justice Story, in the case
of the United States against Wood, delivered
in 1915, and may be found in the second VOL
ume Of Gaieson's reports, page 3Gl.
"Ths was an indictment for resisting one
Lewis,an inspector Of the customs, in the ex-
ecution of the duties of his Office, founded on
the seventyfirst section of the act of Cd
March, 1880" At the trial it appeared that
Lewis was duly appointed an Inspector of the
customs by the late collector Of Boston, Mas
sachusetts, since whose resignation he had
been reappointed to the same Office by the
present collector; but the alleged resistance
took place after the resignation of the former
collector, and before the reappontment of
Lewis: he having continued to act as inspec-
tor under his old commission.
"The question reserved at the trial was,
whether Lewis was, under the circumstances.
an inspector against whom the offence could
be committed" The learned Judge in pro-
nouncing the opinion Of the court said "the
twenty-irst section Of the act Of I'd March,
| 1899, chapter l2s, provides that the collector
OF customs shall, with the appreciation OF the
principal officer Of the Treasury Department,
employ proper persons as weighers, gaugers
mcasurers,and inspectors at the several ports
within their districts. The officers appoint
ed by the collector, under this section, hold
their Offices during his pleasure, end cease 10
be such upon his deaihremopai, or resignation,
unless the law has enabled him to give more
permanency to their Offices"
"ln respect to certain officers the law has
provided for the execution Of their duties af-
ter their principal is out of office. Such, in
the case of denIn of LLe cnllectnr IL tho au-