The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-02-21

|
urged that these great powers in the management Of
the Board of Exchequer, would be peryercd-,hat
ambition would be an oyermatch for patriotism, and
that the destinations Of power and office would have
the effect of swerving the President and Secretary OF
the Treasury from their fidelity TO the interests of the
people, and their duty to the nation. When we ex-
anime the scope and the extent of the power lodged
with the President over the Board of Exchequer we
must confess, we at loss to the grounds on
which the opposing arguments are based that IN the
hands the President this institution may be welded
injurousy to the prosperity of the country, or will be
converted into engine to subugate the liberty OF
the people"
! 1t has been strenuousy contended that the instu
ton would be under the entire control and manage
ment of the Executive. That this postuate is utterly
ineconcileabe with the claims and port with which
this institution comes before the country il is inpos
sble to deny: The position assumed in aver of this
argument is, that the Secretary of the Treasury is
removable by the President, and thus the President
would obtain the direction of the affairs of the ins
tuition.
The power of the President to remove the Secre
ary of the Treasury, has been treated on another oc
casion with admirable force and perspcuity 1t would
no doub, be recoIlected that vehement contest
about the extent and efficacy of the power Of the Pre-
sident to remove the Secretary had taken place in
| Congress in 1884. We cannot undertake to speak
confidently Of the opinions Of all who took part in
that controversy for it is long time since we read
the debate but believe the great point in contes-
aiion, was the nature Of the power claimed by the
President to make the removal. The great constltu-
| tional points which discussed, regards the
powers of the Executive the important principles
| which this discussion went to establish, and the OPP
portunity which afforded for the display of rmness
| and consistency Of several distinguished statesmen
| in a novel and interesting question, all combined to
render it an important epoch in the history of the
country.
| Against the exercise of the power by President
Jackson to the Secretary the Treasury from
office, it was commended that he the officer of
Congress- according the provisions Of the act of
| 1882 By this act the duties Of the department are
pointed out, as well as the tenure of his office. In
reference the tenure of this Office, Mr.. Clay re-
marks that, The Secretary Of the Treasury is by
that act (l7S9) constituted the agent Of Congress
he is required to report to Congress annually the state
of the finances and his plans respecting them; he is
to report any time any particular branch of the
| fiscal concerns Of the country he is the agent of
Congress to watch the safety of the national de-
poses See Mr. Clay's speech on the report of the
Secretary Of the Treasury ON the subject of the
mova of the deposites, December 23d, 1883.
Here, then, is pretty distinct expression of the
power of the President in this respec', from the
highest But we will not content ourselves
with this only, but show from the declarations Of
some of most distinguished opponents, what was
the well understood principle in regard to the exercise
of the power of the removal
Mr.. Binrey after commenting upon the act of 1889,
and speaking in reference to this act observes that
1t is not meant to say that the Secretary ofhe Tre,
sury performs and is bound to perform, duties of
an Executive Department, that in the performance
of any such duties he not subject to direction by
the President but is meant to say that the Treasu
ry Department is not in its control Of the Treasury
an Executive Department. in the constitutional sense;
and that the direction which is to govern the country
is left by the of the act to be settled according
TO the character Of the functions be exercised The
Secretary is not the head of an Executive Depart
ment 10 the performance of acts which concern the
custody and the security of the public moneys the
Treasury. His department is not, in this respect
Presidential department" See Mr. Binneys speeches,
vol 9, Congressional Debates, page 1886.
Mr. Huntington, of the Senate also condemns the
AT sumption of power as claimed by President Jack
son. He says: Z" l will not inquire whether the
Treasury be an Executive Department, though the
act organizing it, in title in the duties required of
him who presides over it, in the provision that his
ports are to be made TO Congress, in the very nature
OF the trust committed to him-al prove that it was
IL, tha nf Tho
President in any form"
There is much utility in recurring back to these re-
miniscences and seeing what others thought upon the
subject Of the direction of the Executive over the Gus
tody and management of the revenue. 1t was
thought by Messrs. Clay, Bnney and Huntington
Ewing and Clayton, that the Secretary Of the lrea
sury was, by the act of 1882 organizing the Depart
ment under the control of Congress. Yet now, when
an institution be established for the purpose of
aiding the Department in managing tie fiscal affairs
of the Government with energy and economy and It's
sung objects, equalizng the exchan ges between
distant commercial points the President is denounced
He is represented seeking the establishment Of an
institution endowed with vast power for the pur-
pose of extending relief to the country in its present
disr .ssed and embarrassed condition, but to augment
| MS influence Cu nOl the oeHatoIs, WIN nave thus
misrepresen,ed him. recoect the Interpretation they
had given to the act of 1892 Did they not know
that Mr.. Tyler then, accorded in opinion nth them
in relation to the extent of the power Of the President
over the action Of the Secretary of the Treasury.
With these views of the organization of the Federal
1 Executive why do they seek to shroud this Exche-
quer Board with many appalling associations, and
ehdeavor to nstil into the public mind hostility to
its principles 1.-THE interpretations given to the act
of $780, by Mcssrs. Clay, Huntington, and others, be
admitted be correct is not this institution stripped
Of TINT lnasa Of nnlilicnl nwer which the srlnnns