The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-03-19
CONCLUDED.

Ire UhOte OF me ffOuSe ~ A'cP' coo''S"''''",
January, 1912.
CONCLUDED.
The next point from which the Senator from Ken
lucky attacks the Veto power the extent to which
the power of removal has been carried. Certainly,
the frequent abuse of this power grievance which
the people have for years loudly complained That
should be prescribed for the fearless express
sion Of their political sentiments, Is principle OF Con
stitutional liberty which will never surrender. 10
place the arbitrary power of unlimited removal IN the
hand Of a single man would have been an objection
To the Federal Constitution which ITS friends could
never have answered The slight attention that was
paid and the little importance that was attached to tue
probable abuse of this alarming power Is one OF ne
most extraordinary facts the political history OF the
Republic The language of the Constitution Is that
The President shall nominate, and by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, appoint, &C. NE
power,to nominate does not necessarily embrace 'ho
mower of removal. They not equivalent or Co
extensive The power of removal is incident to the
power of appointment. As the Federal officers are
appoi tinted by the President i conjunction Nth the
Senate they .nOveable only by the same aufto-
rity The power 10 create vacancy Is incident to
the power to fill a vacancy As, therefore, the Presi-
dent may appoint officers during the of Con
gress, he may remove them during the same period
This construction is sustained by the present Secrea
nv of State whose luminous and profound argument
leaves nothing to be added IN Its support That II
est and most friends OF the Constitution
evident from the Federalis In the 77th number It's
language u.s. that the consent of that body tho Senate
would be necessary to displace we'll to appoint
1t speaks of this clause provision which com ecfs
the existence Of public icihh the appreciation or
Interpretation Of that body which, from the greater
permanency of its own composition, WILL In all proba-
bilty be less subject to INCONSISTENCY than any other
member Of the Government. In the debate IN 1853,
upon the bill establishing the Department of State
tlOn an
it decided, by vote of thirty four to twenty,
that the power Of vested in the President
alone That this decision, in which the country has
ever since unfortunately acquiesced resulted in great
degree from the unbOunded confidence reposed in the
integrity and patriotism of General Washington, is
proved by the history Of the times and has never been
denied from that moment 10 this. When the Senator
from Kentucky mourns the alarming extent TO
which this power has been abused when he urges 1t
as an instance of the usurpation Of the Executive on
the Legislative department. and boldly advances it as
paramount reason why the Veto power ought to be
repealed he should examine accurately the early
history Of the Government and remember that all the
prescription and tyranny with which the country has
for twelve years been cursed, has flowed, not from
the arbitrary usurpation Of the po,cer Of remoral by
the President but its tame surrender by Congress.
Mr. Chairman: The Senator from Kentucky ex-
claims if the Veto be necessary protect the Exc
cutive, why not for the same reason, confer it upon
the Judciary2 The trainers of the Constitution in
enabling the different departments to defend them
selves, have placed different weapons in their hands.
The salutary purposes which the Executive accom-
plshes by the Veto the Judiciary achieves by other
but not less efficient means. Although the weakest
department of the Government it is surrounded by
three great buwarks, the tenure during good be
havior, salaries which cannot be diminished during
the continuance of the judges in Office and the pow
er 10 decide the cons,itu,ionality Of the laws of
Congress. The Judiciary has, indeed, no veto. for
it is not necessary for its existence and action 1t
was proposed in the Federal Convention to cothe
it with this high power, but the mpolicy of per-
hitting it to participate In the enactment OF laws
which they afterwards to decide was lmue-
diately perceived and admitted by all. Let e1-
anime the safeguards which, after the abrogation OF
the Veto, will be left to the President according to
the views Of the Senator from Kentucky. The oaths
of office and the responsibility OF the Representa-
tves 10 the people, the first and most prominent
They who know the extent to which personal amb
ton and private interest," and party spirit prevail In
Congress, and who how often the people ART
misled by the inhammatory appeals anu deceived BY
the false professions of their own representatives
will be slow to rely upon such slender barriers tc
protect the rights and wers of the Executive
The next security is the authority of the Judiciary
When reflect that the power Of the Judiciary is
confined to all cases Of law and equity arising under
the Consi ution and does not extend TO the decision
of questions purely political, must perceive thai
it will afford but slight and uncertain protection t.
the President against the Entertainments Of Con
gress. The faacy of the last security the equality
between the Chief Magistrate and the members Of II
National Legislature in conflict before the people,
have at the very outset of this debate attempted tt
prove Whatever confidence the Senator from Ken.
lucky may repose in 1.-THE strength of these securities
all history warns of their incurable weakness
And when he that the annals Of these States
afford insta nee in which the Legislative has en-
croached upon the other departments Of Government
or passed such rash and hasty laws called for the
restraint and safeguard of single sovereign will, hi
forgot the history of Kentucky when the Genera
a.. l~..I, H., T.,1.
and if the Governor had dissented from their ruinou
and unconstitutional laws, would have broke the Ex
ecutive also.
Mr.. Chairman: 1t is true, as the Senator from
Kentucky contends, that the Veto Of the President il
equal the vetoes of forty members Of Congress-
that an individual when transferred from the Senat,
to the Chief Magstracy, without any increase of wis
dom or patriotism, is clothed with increase of pow
er His voice prevails against that of large humble
of his former equals. Is this reason why the Vett
should be repealed Let carry the argument int
the other branches of the Government. Why is
that few members Of Congress transferred TO tn,
bench, can declare the laws of whole Congress un
constitutional and void2 Why is it that Represen
tatve transferred from the lower House to the Senate
has voice equal to that of one half of all the Repre-
sentatives OF his State 2 Demolish the Executive
branch for the assigned by the Senator from
Kentucky, and what will prevent you from evelins
the ground for the same of increased power
without increased wisdom and patriotism, not only
the Judiciary, but the Senate Itself? The argument
in favor Of the repeal of the Veto drawn from the par
TALLY of President for his native State and his iso
lated situation really entitled to little weight. Th
probability is, that Chief Magistrate, being conf
9sns pfdb .Rsft 81. y Be
to his interest. Kentucky has never succeeded il
electing of her citizens the Presidency, yet sh
has not been sighted in the federal appointments
During the three last administrations and the presen,
she has been represented in the Cabinet. canno
perceive why the President of the United State
should not be as we'll informed of the condition of tn