The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-03-30

J. The incumbents were elected BY ballot This Is
the ordinary mode Of creating officer not Of enter
ing into contract We elect officer; we cove
nant with u contractor
2. They have given an official bond. say Off
cal bond, because reciies their election, and supu
lales for the performance Of tier duties.
g. As printers 10 this House, they have the right OF
entering this Halla right which belongs only TO ITS
members and officers, and to certain privileged per
sons, among whom the ncumbents are not included
II they not officers, what rs the foundation OF TINS
right3
A. As such officers they have access TO the conn
DENTAL documents of the Senate IN relation 70 "n,on
It's officers and members held secrecy by ITS rules
Are they the incumbents, exempted from inns oonka
ton And, il they are not officers Of the Senate
where Is the rule which binds them :
From these facts, thus briefly stated the obvious IN
terence would TO be that the printers OF the De
nate are officers of the Senate.
But, fit is preferred, take the legal view.
An officer is defined TO be one who exercises pub
lie or private employment with right 10 receive the
fees and emoluments incident TO IL public, as magls
trate private, baiiia receiver Gentlemen have
referred 10 the ordinary photographers for the denn
ton of this tenn do not object to this but, yield
ing to the force OF habit have turned 10 law-wne
who treat Of the subject and they tell us that me
nature Of the employment, not its erfenf which deter
mines whether Il be public or private ana .ha',
limited the employment If i concern the pubic
the person employed 10 public officer DO not uou
BILE the Senate by the abduction of authorizes
they accessible 10 all nor do press upon .ne
House the consequences which result IRON TINS uenhi-
ton because they must be obvious those who hear
me- All must admit that the printer to me Se ,
exercises IN employment which concerns the Public
and thai be = entitled 10 the cmouments arising from
" 4hn 7all which y nsesssssy % constitute pup
The precise question which we are considering is
thus understood in England. There the King Is the
of Office and of dignity The public printer II
therefore denominaed the Kings printer Is recognzed
as public officer; and, such, is exempt from lapil
~ to the precautionary measures authorized by the
sta he of
publications, passed in the reign Of George ~ 70
which all the private members Of the craft are haoe.
Is it questionable, then, considering the supJee. -
gal view, that the printer fthe Senate is pnpiic ON
cer-an officer Of this Housel
But gentlemen tell us this is contraet-thst me
election OF the present incumbents to the once OF
tiers TO the Senate constitutes contract between the
and this House do not stop to CONSIDER me ehpai
RAISING and mischicvous consequence when wouiu
result from the establishment of this proposon-oi 70
point out the difficulties in which we might be nsoi-
we'd by the athessness of public printer we were
enfettered by contract which could only be enforced
in the ordinary courts of justice, by decree or spe
cic performance, compensated by damages ior .nc
breach OF 1t. am quite sure this Is posoh IN wc
| the Constitution never intended TO place U.S. put
waive this and address myself to the argument which
is entitled grave considerations, because OF the source
from which it emanaes, and Of the earnestness win
which il is urged.
We have been reminded Of the legal definition Of a
contract-tha il is agreement to do or not TO DO
particular thing. This is true but in this sense eve
ny election to office is contract There Is, IN the ac
ceptance of every Office, implied agreement 70 PEI,
form its duties, there is in every election or appoint
ment to office similar stipulation to pay the saiary,or
to permit the receipt Of the fees ms reasoning,
therefore proves too much, and the argument Is not
advanced by it, But the law has something more 70
say on this subject Of contract This agreement 10 90
not TO do particular thing must be made between
parties able contract willing to contract and VINO
must actually have contracted The question whien
propose to gentlemen is this; Is the Senate OF me
United States competent party TO contract capapie
of entering into bond of receiving one OF making
| or receiving grant The parties to contract are
/ L. Individuals of full age, OF sound that ls OF ie
gal discretion one who is sui jurs, not under du-
| ress, &c.
/ 2. Corporations, or quasi corporations.
Il is pretended that the individuals who compose
the Senate parties TO this contract. goooiy
number Of these say Truly, non IN hGc J9-
dera. Is the Senate, then, corporations OF quasi
corporation These exist by grant, charter, &c, or
the attributes of corporation the corporate charaG.e
the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons Q,
England constitute corporation. So do the United
States their federal character, and the Government
of each separate State But neither House OF Para-
ment, OF Congress, separate branch OF o,a's
Legislature is corporation. II, then, the individual
members of the Senate not parties to this contract
and the Senate body is incapable OF contracting
what becomes of the alleged contracts IL Is SAID tnat
the Senate have entered into contract aud have Ia
ken bond for its performance. But that bond Is pay
able not the Senate, but to the United States OF
America. Why is this If the Senate are capafie
of contracting are they not capable of taking bond
payable to themselves Does not the manner In
which this bond is taken concede the point IN coniro
versy and affirm the ncapacity OF the Senate TO De-
come parties to contract
i The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun)
supposes the question be too plain for argument,
and agree with him. but in an opposite sense from
that in which he makes the assertion. lie hnds a So
luton of the question in the difference between an
Office and an employment; which, in the case we are
considering he snpposes to consist IN ths hat an OH
Ger performs his duties at the expense and ON tne re-
sponsblity of The persons by when ne IS appointed
while person employed under contract performs
those duties at his own expense and on his own re-
sponsbility confess this is not satisfactory to my
mind. And first, there is If the Senator will pardon
| me, confusion of terms. An ofhce Is an employ
ment and is SO recognised in every legal definition of
the term Office The attempt TO distinguish them Is
therefore nugatoy; and to say that tins Is not an Oh
fee becau II is an employment under contract, Is
to assume the very question which Is In controversy
But the Senator illustrates the distinction which he
supposcs exist by saying that the press paper types
&c. furnished by the incumbents, who work Their
own MEANS and therefore this is Notwithstanding
that If the converse were true II the materials Were
furnished by the Senate, they would be officers
Surely this is usory. A contract may be for the
supply OF labor and materials, or of either separately,
and the duties Of officer may include the obligation
10 supply the means of performing them axe 'he
case OF the Secretary often referred to IN ne argu-
ment He receives salary, and you pay Tor ms sta
tionery out of the contingent fund oil the senate
He is therefore officer II you were 10 enlarge ms
compensation, to the cost OF the stationery
and require him furnish IT, would be cease to be sol
] cannot believe that this view will be available TO me
condemnation of the advocates of the resolution at
the tribunal TO which we are summoned Ihen we
are admonshed of the sacredness Of contracts, and
the excitement occasoned by the removal Of The de-
posiies is referred TO as evidence of public opinion
on this subject. The Senator from New Hampshire
apprehend, mistakes the question which drawn
into controversy by that act of Executive powell
That question related not to the validity Of the bank