Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1837-03-23


tion is,that said compi1int is not ,oeH founded"
The report does not state in what manner the
committee examined into the complaint they
assume to be made by the mcmorialist, nor
by what course of reasoning they come to
that result. If the Committee had looked in
to the memorial, they would have seen that
the mehorialist complained, not so much Of
being removed from office, as of the grounds
alleged, the object of it, and the manner in
which it was effected. The memoralist stat
ed explicitly, that he had been removed from
Office, contrary TO the wishes of the Collec-
tor; by the influence and control of interested
and irresponsible political partzans, for party
purposes, contrary to justice and equity, in
derogation fthe essential rights Of citizens,
and without the sanction of law. The memo
rialist stated further, that the Collector was
satisfied with him, and he would retain him
in Office if he possibly could, that it was not
his wish to remove him, SC. Sc. lfthose de-
clarations were not made in truth and sin
cerity, 'tbey stamp him with more than gross
hypocricy." 1t is a fact, that through his i'm
beciity, and want Of firmness, he was influ-
enced by few party men to remove the me-
morialist, and others; and after being made
the tool of those party men, the Committee
attempt to shield him from censure, and to
justify him under the colour of law; and de-
clare those acts are not "unjust, oppressive,
or proscriptve." Some of the reasons which
brought the Committee to that result, are then
stated. "First, to suppose that the memori-
ulist should after having been continued in
Office for the space of ten years, be permitted
still longer to hold that office to the exclusion
of others equally capable of discharging its
duties, and equally worthy Of the considera-
ton of the Government, being contrary to
the spirit Of all our Institutions" Arguing
on the ground of rotation IN office, this would
have a plausible appearance with those who
favor that doctrine, and to whom the facts i'll
this case are not known. But to confute this
argument as it applies to the case under con-
s.jera;rS,s, it = barely necessary 20 state, thai
the memorialist, who had held the Office o
weigher and guager for ten years, was remov-
ed,and his place supplied by his late colleague
who haG held the office of weigher and gusg-
er for SEVENTEEN OR EIGHTEEN YEARS; who
had been removed few days before from
that office, and Elisha Atkins appointed in
his place, for reasons stated by the Collector
to the memorlalist, and re-appointcd sole
gaugcr to the exclusion of the memor iallst, for
reasons stated by Mr.. Pearce to the memoir
alst, which reasons are truly stated in the me
mortal, and not denied; and this is justified by
the Committee on the principle Of rotation in
office. The principle of rotation in office has
been strangely perverted of late,-and the
Committee have fallen in with the popular no
ton, to justify such palpable offences as are
stated in the memorial and documents, a
ganst the rights and privileges of citizens
BY popular notion,I mean the notion of all on
of Office, who wish to get in; & they are vas'l.
the greatest number. The idea ofrotation il
office entertained by Washington, Jefferson
Madison, &c. never extended beyond those
offices chosen by the people to make laws fol
their government,w whose errors might be cor
rected by free and frequent elections by the
people. The debates on the bill for establish.
ing an Executive department in 1859, which
are gravely referred to in the report, and the
opinions of Mr.. Madison, Mr.. Gerry, &c. arc
not at all applicable to the subject under
consideration. They concur in the opinion
that the power to remove from Office is identi
cal to the power to appoint-a power ncve
disputed; and not denied, but admitted in tin
memorial. But neither Of them, nor any othe
statesman of that day, ever avowed or coun
tenanccd the principle now contended for b.
the Committee; that an officer, invested wit
the power to appoint, or remove from office
should be controlled even by majority of tn
people, to remove men from office for part
purposes; much less by minority of the MI
nority Of party to subserve party views, a
was the fact in the case under consideration
for there ,oas not more than seuen (assembled !
eonclare) concerned IN the plot.
As inferred in the report, the memorials
freely granted that he was aware he held hi
Office at the will Of the Collector, with the ap
probation of the Secretary of the Treasury
and was liable to be removed by the Collec
tor at any time for just cause, with the con
sent Of the Secretary; and he stated in hi
letter to the Secretary complaining of his re
nova, that if that had been the case,h shoul
have submitted to it with becoming resigna
ton; but il was effected very much again'