Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1837-03-16
DAVID MELVELL.
IN the House Of Representatives., february %

The Committee on Commerce, to which
was referred the memorial Of David Newell
Of Newport, Rhode Island, report: That from
the statement made by the memorlallst, II APP
pears that he was appointed weighcr and
gauger of the customs, for the port of New
port, district OF Newport State of Rhode Is
land, by Christopher Ellery, the late collector
of said port, some time in the year 1924; that
he continued to hold said said Office, aud dis
charge the duties thereof, until March, 1885,
about which time William Littefeld was ap-
pointed collector OF said port to fill the va
cancy occasioned by the resignation of The
above named Christopher Ellery; when the
ineinOrlalist, together with five other subal-
tern officers of the customs, were discharged
from Office. And as the nemorallst says
"for no other cause than their disagreement in
politics from the present administration, or
because they were not qualified as voters by
the laws Of The State Of Rhode Island, where
they resided; and could not, OF course, aid the
political views of the existing administration
and It's friends"
The memorlalist complains that his remov-
al, As well as that of the other subordinate
officers, was wrong and oppressive. And he
thinks "he real ground OF the removal OF him
self was because he was not possessed OF a
freehold estate. and therefore, could be Of no
use to the pariy" He then closes with pray
er, shat Congress would take the subject in
10 consideration, and adopt such measures as
shall be deemed proper and enact laws to re-
strict the patronage of the Executive branch
Of the Government, so as 10 secure the clt-
zens in all their rights, and perpetuatc the
blessings Of freedom and our free institutions
To postcrlty"
Upon The above statement of facts, the on
hf,a ,,l, tl.Art thn
bove description Of officers have right to
hold their offices for life? Upon no other
ground can the removal, of which the memo
rialist complains, be considered unjust, OPP
prcssive, and proscriptve." And he ought
to be held to prove, in the most clear and sat
lsiactory manner, the fact, that he possessed
life estate in office before he can, with any
propriety, complain of the collector for remov-
ing him.
The memorialist has, however, complained
of The conduct of the collector Of that port,
in removing him from office, and it therefore
becomes necessary to examine the premises,
to see whether the complaint is well founded
or not. The result of which examination is,
that said complaint is not well founded. Some
of the reasons which have brought the COM
Inlttee to that result are the tollowins: First,
To suppose that the memorlalist 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 scharging its duties, and equally
worthy the consideration Of the Government,
be contrary to the very spirit Of all our insti-
tutions. The best security which the peo-
pie have for the faithful administration of their
public affairs; is to keep all their public SER
wants as near them as possible. In all cases
save one, this was the opinion of that wise
and noble band OF patriots who formed the
Constitution Of the United States. The Con-
stltutions Of the several States of this con-
federacy are also, with the single exception
before mentioned, founded upon the principle
that all public men should be often compel
led to render an account of the way and man.
ner they had discharged the trusts which had
been committed to them.
When, therefore, the principle Of rotation
in Office is recognized in the form of Govern
ment which we have adopted, and under
which we live, why is it we hear such mourn
ful complaints relative to removals from of
fee? This principle is not only recognized
in the Constitution of the United States, but
it has from the earliest history Of the Govern
ment been fully and fairly illustrated in prac-
tice. Most all of the public officers. from the
highest to the lowest, after service of from
their own voluntary resignation, or at the call
of the people, been induced To yield up their
public and responsible trusts to others. And
this has most generally been done with be-
lief that the public good might thereby be
promoted. Although the memorast does
not seem to entertain such belief, yet it is
very certain that the people will believe that
the complaint which he has instituted for be-
ing removed from office is not of such a char
acter as to require any legislative action.
But the collector, in the case now under
consideration. is not confined in his answer
to the principle Of rotation in office, but he
has right to say to the memoralSt that he
held his office at the pleasure of that power
which invested him with public trust. This
principle rests upon foundation which can
not be shaken, so long as our present insttu-
tlons remain unchanged. BY recurring to the
debates on the bill for establishing an cxecu-
tive department in 1889, the principle was ad-
united that the power of appointing and dis I
missing from office were in their natures uni
ted On this occasion Mr.. Madison said: SIT
is evidently the intention of the Constitution
that the first magistrate should be responsible
for the executive department. SO far, there
fore, as we do not make the officers who are
to aid him, he IS not responsible 10 his country"
Mr.. Gerry, on the same occasion, said: "He
laid it down as a maxim, that the Constitution
vesting in the President the executive power,
naturally rests him with the power of appoint
ment and removal
Mr.. Lvermore, during the same discussion,
also observed that she did not admit that any
man had an estate IN his office. | conceive
(says hey where the Constitution stipuates
for different tenure, unless, indeed, the law
should create the office or officer for term
ofyears. After observing this, must con-
tend the po,oer Of remoral is incidental to the