The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-03-16

III their Secretary should think proper d,ulge conf
dental communications made TO this body could they
not remove him Could they not pass resolution
dismssing him and appoint anotherf Suppose no
insulted them in open Senate-were they obliged TO
keep him in Office as Secretary Were they obliged
TO 90 through the formaty OF proceedings TO remove
him. or could they not get rid OF him at oncel How
was il with the printerl Suppose he should abuse
their confidence and when confidential communica-
ton was given him, should publish II in his news
paperwas II not Indispensable, as the case might oe
10 the preservation Of the rights Of the Senate that
this person should be dismissed IL was Inherent IN
the very constitution of the body unless they had tho
power 10 remove person whom they appointed as
servant there end TO the bodyat any rate, To
the preservation of its honor and dignity.
He would not enlarge further ON this but would
assume ii there were joint resolution on this sub
ect the case would be clear and then they could pass
this resolution without the slightest infringement Of
obligation.
the able argument OF the Senator from Pennsy vania
in which he had said every thing that could be said,
with that skill and ingenuity that always characte
rsed him in debate. What was the resolution He
would not 90 into the difference between the re-
yer would examine he would that j, expended It's
force at the first appointment He agreed that
of 1929 provided that there should be appointment
within the last 80 days OF the session but it did not
say how long he must hold il that OF 1919 did for
two years" Did il make the slightest difference in
point of principle whether this officer was appointed
under the joint resolution or without IT. II was not
the creation of an office the Constitution had pre-
scribed in relation TO this. The Constitution said
they should appoint him and though the joint resou
ton merely carrying out this principle it did not
make oilce-this what he supposed To be a
Misrepresentation of the Senator from Pennsylvania
to It's nature Was there any thing in the resolution
which made him less officer than if he was ap.
pointed without il So far from il, the resolution,
Of 1872 did nothing more less than this It
pointed out in words specifically certain duties To be
performed by the priniersi u directed the mode IN
which It was TO. be performed-the compensation
and then specified the time when to be appontcdthat
all He asked the attention of the Senator from
Pennsylvania 10 this view of the join, resolution He
MIR. considered il creating contract between
the two parties There was no contract in this rcso-
uton--nothing in the form and nature OF contract
nothing more or less than declaration that they
had certain duties 10 periorm--how they should be
paid forand then what time the officer To perform
them shall be appointed But did this make him less
an otfcer2 Was there any thing of the nature OF a
contract connected with il III any one (Which he
denied) admitted that grew of the office,
it which, If the office becomes vacant or the
| officer be removed, was annued and the official bonds
with it, which are nothing more or less than bond
for the faithful performance OF the duties while IN
office.
He would illustrate his view Of the joint resolution
by case which was perfectly analogous that the
human mind could not distinguish between them
They had what was called Sub-treasurer; and then
to be appolnted-that explained by the Consttu-
ton of the u Sta If he had not been appointed
by the resolution he must have been by the President
OF the United States.
Now, because the duties were pointed out--the
compensation poin ed out and because he gives bond
and security, could not the President remove him 7
Was there any doubt about this The Treasurer of
the United States has certain duties topertorm Who
appoints him The Constitution says the President,
unless Congress provide some other manner Is the
Treasurer ofhcerl Admitted Can he be remov-
ed at the pleasure of the PRESIDENT Why has he not
entered into bond to discharge the duties faithfully
And ii this Treasurer is such officer, having spe-
cc duties perform and such could be discharged
Notwithstanding he had been appointed could the
printer, who is appointed officer under the 10 mt
resolution, pointing out his duties be removed Let
take the of the Secretary of the Senate
Suppose, instead of there being any law on the sub
ject he was appointed by JOINT resolution, other
wise-that the Secretary OF the Senate and the Clerk
Of the House OF Representatives should perform
tain duties, pointing them out-he would suppose
there was similar joint resolution, only substituting
the Secretary for the Piinter"that hereafter the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House shall
be confined to these duties to WITT He then spec-
fed the duties. And that he shall receive his com
pensaon, IS 900 per year, during the Congress-
and then that il proceed just this has done, that
the first Thursday OF The first session OF each Con
gress they shall be appointed" Suppose that it was
IN the form OF jint resolution, could they not
move their Secretary if they pleased to Suppose
we had required bonds Of him. cannot we remove
him. because his duties pointed out Z He
thought there was no doubt this subject
Could they not do the with the lrinterl He
might 90 on and multiply these remarks almost ndef-
nltey As TO the nature of this resolution, he would
not now 90 into the discussion of it at length He
should not inquire whether it that could not
be repealed by either body without the of the
President of the United States but he wished TO pro-
coed on the principle that it lava joint rcsolu-
tion and then said that there nothing in the
joint resolution than declaration Of the duties to be
performed and the compensation to be paid and this
the case with any officer
One word more. They had now, in the case of
their Secretary, without the joint resolution the du-
ties marked out for him, implied by law. Did there
not attach to every officer Of the Senate certain duties
that he must do That he must be prompt in his at
tendance herethat he this body with all due
spect and decorum. Was not this implied in the very
nature Of his office
Did the joint resolution add any thing to the nature
of his obligations Was he less oficerl Less
subject TO removal? lfhe did not very much mistake
the nature of the joint resolutonfor he could not
think that any gentleman who voted for it supposed
that there was any thing in it than the decara
ton of what specific duties should he performed that
all that the Joint resolution proposed. He
officer just much-so that the joint resolution
and the whole subject was brought within the compass
of single inquiry; and that was-ndependent OF
this Joint resolution they had merely passed vote
declaring that they would appoint printer for the
next Congress- then could they not remove him 7
And If they could not, he begged leave TO know if
there was any officer whom, if they chose they had
the power to removed
He would endeavor well as he could TO compress
his remarks within short compass. The general
view that he had relation to this matter considered
this printer officer, under the Constitution such
an officer as, by acknowledged parliamentary ia,e is
removable. The joint resolution did make the
slightest difference in the nature of the Office and in
this point of view, he prepared to say that the
Senate has the power OF exercising what called to
be their right OF removing, dsmssing these printers
from office.
On the question, ,ohether they should exercise il or
not he wished merely to say that the manner and the