The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-02-22
A REVIEW OF THE ExCHEoUER BOARD


urged that these great powers in the management OF
the Board of Exchequer would be perverted--that
ambition would be Overmatch for patriotism, and
that the destinations of power and office would have
the effect of swerying 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 the Board of Exchequer, we
must confess, we at loss to see the grounds on
which the opposing arguments based, that in the
hands ofthe President this institution may be welded
nuriousy to the prosperity of the country, or will be
converted into engine to subjugate the liberty OF
the people,"
1t has been strenuousy contended that the nstitu-
ton would be under the entire control and manage
ment of the Executive. That this postutate is utterly
irreconceabe with the claims and port with which
this institution before the country 1t is Inpos
sible to deny The position assumed in faver 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 insti-
tuition
The power of the President to remove the Secre-
tary of the Treasury has been treated another oc
cason with admirable force and perspicuity ltwould
no doubt be recollected that vehement contest
about the extent and efficacy of the power of the re-
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 (or is long time since we read
the debate but we believe the great point in contes
tation, was the nature of the power claimed by the
President to make the removal. The great constltu'
,ional points which were discussed, as regards the
powers of the Executive the important principles
which this discussion went to establish and the OPP
portunty which it afforded for the display of frmness
and consistency of several distinguished statesmen,
in 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 remove the Secretary ofthe Treasury from
office, it contended that he was the officer of
Congress- according to the provisions of the act OF
1889 By this act the duties of the department are
pointed out as we'll the tenure of his office. In
reference to the tenure of this office Mr.. Clay re-
marks that, "The Secretary Of the Treasury is by
that act (1789) constituted the agent Of Congress;
he is required report to Congress annually the state
of the finances, and his plans respecting them; he is
to report at 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.. Clays speech on the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury the subject of the re-
mova of the depostes, December Odd, 1888.
Here, then, is a pretty distinct expression of the
power of the President in this respect, from the
highest source. But will not content ourselves
with this only, but show from the declarations of
some of our 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 1859,
md speaking in reference this act observes that.
1t is not meant to say that the Secretary of the Trea
sury performs, and is bound to perform, no duties of
an Executive Department, or that in the performance
of any such duties he is not subject to direction by
the President but it is meant to say that the Ireasu-
nv Department is not, in its control of the Treasury,
an Erecutipc Department, in the constitutional sense;
and that the direction which is to govern the country
is left by the terms the act to be settled according
to the character of the functions to be exercised The
Secretary s not the head of an Executive Depart
ment, in the performance of acts which concern the
custody and the security of the public moneys in the
Treasury His department is not, in this respect
Presidential department" See Mr.. Bnneys speeches,
vol. 9, Congressional Debates, page 1886
Mr.. Huntington, of the Senate, also condemns the
assumption of power claimed by President jack
son. He says: 81 will not inquire whether the
Treasury be an Executive Department. though the
act organizing it, in its title in the duties required of
him who presides it, in the provision that his re-
ports are to be made Congress, in the very nature
of the trust committed to hm-all prove that it was
not intended to be made subject to the action of the
President in any form"
There is much utility in recurring back to these re-
mnscences, and seeing what others thought upon the
subject Of the direction of the Executive over the
tody and management of the revenue. 1t was
thought by Messrs. Clay, Binney, and Huntington,
Ewing and Clayton, that the Secretary of the Trea-
sury was by the act of 1889, organizing the Depart
menl under the control of Congress Yet now, when
an institution is to be established for the purpose of
aiding the Department in managing tae fiscal affairs
of the Government with energy and economy and It's re-
sulting objects, equalizng the exchanges between
distant commercial points, the President is denounced
He is represented seeking the establishment OF an
institution endowed with vast power, not for the pur-
pose of extending reliefto the country in lis present
disr .ssed and embarrassed condition, but to augment
his influence. Did not the Senators, who have thus
misrepresened him, recoect the Interpretation they
had given to the act of 1889 Did they not know
that Mr.. Tyler then accorded in opinion with 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
Executive, why do they seek to shroud this Exche-
quer Board with so many appalling associations, and
endeavor to insti into the public mind hostility to
its principles 1.-THE interpretations given to the act
1SQ by Mcssrs. CLAW uuniinnian and others he