The Madisonian., 1840-01-18

venture lHe opinion tnat SulH law Wouiu nave
been Unconstitutional, and that these officers
would still have remained in office? ! think
not. f
On the question of constitutional power,
there can be no distinction between the case
supposed ard the bill complained Of If the
one would have been constitutional, so is the
other.
Prior to the year $50, these officers held
their Office during pleasure! Congress then
believed many of them hid misdemeaned
themselves, were defauers, &c and, with
view 10 provide remedy, on the 18th OF
May. in that year, an act was passed chang
ing their tenure, and limiting each OF them TO
the term of four years, and made Them re-
nova ole al pleasure within these four years.
Has it ever been thought that act was uncon-
stilutionall Not at all Yet such an objec
ton might have been urged with much more
| force in that case than in this
The only reason assigned in your resolu-
ton why this bill was unconstitutional is, that
it took from these officers the liberty OF
speech, and the Constitution provides that
= Congress shall pass no law abridging the
| freedom Of speech and of the press"
This provision in The Constitution was in
tended for the safety and protection Of the
common citizen who holds NO office. II was
foreseen that those IN office nigh: abuse their
| trust, and 10 protect themselves against ex-
posure, might pass laws restraining the cili-
zens from censuring them, either in speeches
or through the press. Now, in your resolu-
tion, you exactly reverse the matter. and sup
pose it was intended 10 protect the insiru-
menis Of the President, who hold Office at his
4 xvill IN hair ,nAn nd mis-
lead the people in elections During the ad-
minslration Of the elder Mr. Adams, many
complaints were made and charges urged,
both in speeches and through the press, by
the citizens, against him and those in Office
under him. With view TO silence the citi-
Gems, and to mainfain and shield those in office,
the sedi.ion law was passed. The Republi-
cans, one and all, condemned il as unconsti-
,utonal and unjust, and they were right IN
such condemnation.
Your resolution maintains now, exactly the
same doctrines then advanced BY the Fede-
rasts. They wished to silence the people,
that they might retain their places and power,
and your resolution seeks to allow the Office
holders TO go forth with all their power and
influence, to misiead and corrupt the people
obtain their votes in elections, and thus retain
their Offices with all their emoluments
Does your honorable body intend to affirm
that Congress has no power to regulate the
conduct Of this class Of officers!
Are they to be allowed to 60 forth on days
4 of election, and with view to procure votes
for the President or his favorites, promise mo
neg or o6ices, jobs or contracts, by which much
money may be made with but little labor
The ofiice-holder, in making these promises
to influence voters, would be using his po,cerS
Of speech which the resolution affirms Con-
gress cannot abridge or lessen If the pro-
position can be maintained, then Congress
had better go home and yield up every thing
to the President and the corps uho hold o6ice
at has pleasure.
We will, after little reflection, perceive
that this resolution not only unquallfiedly
condemns your Senators for their vote, but
necessarilythe onduct and opinions of others
whom the country has most delighted to
honor.
The only reason assigned in your resolu-
iion why this bill was unconstitutional is, that
it abridged The freedom Of speech.
If you are correct, how dare Mr.. Jefferson,
:" the Apostle of Liberty" in his letter to
Governor Mexican, use the language he did
on this subject! Still more, when he came
into office as President, why did he dare to
issue his circular letter, prohibiting this class
of officers, on pain of dismissal, from inter-
fering in elections farther than TO give their
own votes
He was sworn to support the Constitution,
and If Congress abrldges the freedom of
speech, secured by the Constitution, by the
enactments proposed in this BILL it follows
clearly that the President IN ms circular uio-
lated the same provision, by pronouncing the
+, like penalty for the like o6ience
defy any person to condemn the one with
out condemning the other; unless, indeed,
we suppose there is class of politicians who
believe the Constitution does not, and ought
not to impose any restraint upon the Presi-
dent
fear such sect has lately sprung up,
and is increasing. 1t cannot be too speedily
suppressed.
The late President, General Jackson, in
his inaugural address, when he was fresh
from the people," inculcated the same doc
trine with Mr.. jefferson. To prevent the
patronage of the Government from being
brought into conflict with the freedom of
elections, was a duty inscribed in characters
too legible to be misunderstood &c. was
the strong language he then used. How
was this duty 10 be discharged Did we
not one and all, believe he would discharge
it as Mr. Jefferson had done : If, then, these
Presidents could, uithom violating the Con-
stitutton, prohibit these oficers from interter-
ing in elections, why could not Congress, by
lis enactments prohibit them likewise
No satisfactory answer can be given to this
question.
-The President already had the power
vested in him to dismiss these officers at his