The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-03-20

dentll communications made 10 this body could the,
not rmoye him Could they not pass a resolution
dismislng him and appoint another Suppose h
lnsuled them in open Senaie-were they obliged t
keePhlm IN office Secretary Were they oblige,
TO gothrough the formality OF proceedings TO
him. pr could they not get rid OF him at once How
was u with the printerl Suppose he should abus'
! theifconhdence and when confidential communities
uonwas given TO him, should publish il in his news
pape-was IL not Indispensable as the might be
To lie preservation of the rights of the Senate, tina
thisperson should be dismissed Il inherent ~
theFery constitution of the body unless they had th'
. power TO remove person whom they appointed as q
serant there was an end TO the bodyaI any rate tC
thepreservation ofiIs honor and dignity.
! He would not enlarge further this; but would
assume, II there were joint resolution on this sub
JED, the case would be clear and then they could pass
tbs resolution without the slightest infringement oil
obligation.
This brought him to the more important point to
th' able argument OF the Senator from Pennsy wanna,
IN which he had said every thing that could be SAID
WITH that skill and ingenuity that always characte-
rbed him in debate What was the resolulion2 He
would not now 60 into the difference between the re-
slutlon OF 1919 and 80. That of 1919 if any law
yer would examine, he would see that it expended Its
brce at the first appointment. He agreed that
1879 provided that there should be an appointment
within the last 80 days Of the session. but It did not
say how long he must hold it: that of 1919 did" for
TWO years" Did it make the slightest difference In
/ pm "a PilhCipo OlLCcI dpPOih'Ou
under the joint resolution without III Ii was not
the creation of office; the Constitution had pre-
scnbed In relation to this. The Constitution said
they should appoint him and though the joint esolu-
ton was merely carrying out this principle, it did not
make an ofiice--thIs was what he supposed TO be a
misapprehension of the Senator from Pennsylvanla-
as to Its nature Was there any thing in the resolution
which made him less an officer than if he was APP
pointed without it 2 So far from it, the resolution,
even OF 1919, did nothing less than this-lt
pointed out IN words specifically certain duties TO be
performed by the printers; 1t directed the mode In
which it was to be performed-the compensation
and then specified the time when to be appoinedthat
was all he asked the attention of the Senator from
Pennsylvania TO this view of the joint resolution lie
MIR b. considered it as creating contract between
the two parties There was contract in this
lution-nohng in the form and nature of a contract
nothing more or less than declaration that they
had certain duties to perform-how they should be
paid forand then at what time the officer to perform
them shall be appointed But did this make him less
an officer Was there any thing of the nature of a
contract connected with it2 Ii any one (Which he
dened) admitted that contract grew of The office
1t was one which, if the Office becomes vacant, the
officer be removed annued and the official bonds
with 1t, which are nothing more 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 so perfectly analogous, that the
human mind could not distinguish between them
They had what was called Sub-treasurer; and then
his duties are pointed out and the mode and time when
TO be appolnted-that was explained by the Consttu
ton OF the U Sta c. 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 2
Was there any doubt about this The Treasurer of
the United States has certain duties to perform Who
appoints him The Constitution says the President
unless Congress provide some other manner. Is the
Treasurer officer2 Admitted Can he be remov-
ed at the pleasure of the Presdcnt2 Why has he not
entered into bond to discharge the duties faithfully
And if this Treasurer is such an officer having spe-
cic duties to perform and such could be discharged
notwithstanding he had been appointed, could the
printer who is appointed officer under the JOINT
resolution, pointing out his duties, be removed Let
us take the case of the Secretary of the Senate
Suppose instead of there being any law 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 GER
tain duties, pointing them out--he would suppose
there similar joint resolution, only substituting
the Secretary" for the Printer that hereafter the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House shalt
be confined to these duties to WITT He then speci-
fled the duties. -And that he shall receive his
pensaton, $4,000 per year. during the next Congress,
and then that it 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 joint resolution, could they not re-
move their Secretary if they pleased TOT Suppose
we had required bonds of him, cannot we remove
him, because his duties pointed out He
thought there doubt on this subject
Could they not do the same with the printer He
might go on and multiply these remarks almost indef-
nitely Asto the nature of this resolution he would
not now go into the discussion of it at length. He
should not inquire whether it that could not
be repealed by either body without the consent Of the
M he Jnta hnth N
coed the principle that was lava Joint resolu-
ton, and then said that there nothing more in the
joint resolution than declaration ofhe duties to be
performed and the compensation be paid and this
was 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
attach to every officer of the Senate certain duties
that he must do That he must be prompt in his at
tendance hefehat he treat this body with all due re-
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 an officer Less
subject to remova2 Ifhe did not very much mistake
the nature of the joint resolutionfor 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 be performed that
was all that the joint resolution proposed. He
an officer Just much--so that the Joint resolution
and the whole subject brought within the compass
OF single inquiry and that Neutrality-suspicious. OF
this Joint resolution, (f they had merely passed vote
declaring that they would appoint printer for the
next Congress,) then could they not remove him
And if they could not he begged leave to know if
there any officer whom, ii they chose, they had
the power to remove
He would endeavor as 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 lao 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 dismissng these printers
from Office
On the question, Dhether they should exercise IL or
not he wished merely TO say that the and the
circumstances under which this appointment made,
not only justified but demanded of them, that they
should exercise this power and that the principle
on which they were prepared to pace it, Independent
OF other considerations He held to be expedien to
| make this removal