, 1840-03-14

ton Of the United States, unqualifedIy con.
dennis the vote given in favor Of said bill by
my colleague and myself, and ins,ruc,s your
and proper exertions to prevent, the passage
OF the same, or any similar bill.
When my colleague and myself gave our
votes in favor Of that bill, we acted under
the same solemn sanction of an oath to sup
port the Constitution of the United States
that the numbers of your honorable body did
when they voted IN favor of this condemna-
~ resolution. We had the benefit Of We
ry able arguments both for and against the
bill. We examined it with all the care we
could, and to the conclusion that it was not
unconstitutional, and believing that the pre-
vailing practice Of the President interfering
in elections, both State and Federal, through
the instrumentality of officers, who hold their
places during his pleasure called loudly for
a remedy, we voted in favor of its pas
sage.
If your decision was final, | would not be
so childish as to csk Of YOU to reconsider
the constitutional question.
To men Of ordinary capacity, or equivo-
cal moral character, | might make such a re-
quest, from a belief that the decision was a
hasty one, produced by some ertraneous infu-
ence, and that a more deliberate investigation
Of the subject might lead to a different con
~clusion; but, when | reflect that the leading
members Of that majority which passed the
resolution are men as much distinguished by
their moral character as by their intellectual
attainments and deep research on objects but
"~ungudlife ily condemned" Icannot hope
,L,, 800 -, b,o.kla ,r>p. .onll
urge any thing which would occasion even
a doubt in your minds Of the correctness Of
your decision.
But there is a higher earthly tribunal than
your honorable body, that will judge both
your vote and mine, and pass sentence dis
passionately, without any predisposition to
unqua!ifedly condemn eith.r Of US, but in
charity hoping that each believed, when
giving his vote, he was acting correctly. To
that tribunal, then, our common constituents,
through you, their immediate representatives,
! beg leave respectfully and briefly to as
sign some of the reasons which influenced
the vote complained Of.
Every officer named in that bill holds his
office at the ,ciH Of the President, and is H.
able to be dismissed whenever it is the pleas
xrc of the President to dismiss him. Each
and every one Of the Offices is created by
act Of Congress. The qualification for the
office, the tenure OF il, and the duties 70 be
performed by the officers are, and were
matters Of legislative enactment.
The President has no power to dismiss or
control one of these officers, merely because
he is President. but because Congress, by lap
gave him power. The bill itself expressly
--z..I~ ~. Ill ,ho,o oG,oo-. ehn,lI - -
cure in the rightto rotc on all elections, ac-
cOrdiag TO their o,On judgement, and only for
bid their interference to control and influence
the votes of others.
affirm that Congress had the power to
create these officers, or not, al its pleasure
That. WHEN they were created, Congress
could prescribe the duties of the officers
That, If it had been deemed necessary, Con-
gress could have enacted that the officers
should hold the office during good bshov-
Tor; but that if any one OF the officers inter-
fered to influence the uoteS Of Others, in any
election. either State or Federal, it should
be a mi~sdemsanor in office, for uhich he
should be dismissed.
When the bill complained Of was under con-
sidera;ion, Congress had exactly the same
power over the subject that it had when
the offices were first creating. They might
have repealed the law entirely, and thus
have turned out every one Of these officers.
Suppose, instead of the bill com-
planned Of, q bill had been introduced
and passed stating that, whereas these Of
fcers were in the habit Of interfering to in
huence the votes of the citizens in elections,
therefore, Be it enacted, that the law crea-
ting their officers should be repealed, &c.
whould your honorable body venture the
that such law would have been
unconstitutional, and that these officers
would still have remained in office! l think
not.
On the question of constitutional power,
can be no distinction between the
ease supposed and the bill complained of. If
he one would have been constitutional, so
IS the other.
Prior in the year 1920, these officers held
heir office during pleasure. Congress then
believed many Of them had misdemeaned
themselves, were defaulters, &C., and, with
, view TO provide a remedy, on the 18th Of