Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1843-02-17

tanned 10 this report, not because u nhu
been publicly attacked here, hui because
he had learned. 10 his regret, that there
were some Of his friends who UNDER
stood it differently from what he had 10
tended, and therefore he feared il might
be made subject Of INSTRUMENTATION
He referred 10 that part Of the report
Of the committee Of Ways and Means
that spoke of lhe legislative power OF
this country to control the appointing
power. The question presented 10 the
consideration Of the committee was sim
DIV this, whether il was in the power OF
the Legislature TO control the power OF
removal as exercised by the appointing
power. They had not conceived that
the question was properly presented to
the House as 10 what this appointing
power was, o. whether the true con-
slructon had been given 10 the Consi'
tution by legislative enacImen's, which
declared that the President had the pow
or Of removal whsre the President and
Senate one had the power oI appoint
ment. He begged leave to say, that, af
ter thorough examination of the de-
bates in the first Congress 10 reference
to this question, and after still more
careful and critical examination OF The
debate in the Senate in 1885 on this oil
: important subject, he had come 10 The
conclusion, and he now avowed IT. hare,
and he could not conceive Of any senti-
( ment in that report which warranted
I different cOnslruction,) that wherever
the power Of appointment was vested in
the President and Senate, in thar case
, the President and Senate alone had the
f power OF removal He believed il was
Z an erroneous construction Of The Consi
/, tution which gave the power Of removal
y in this case to the President alone. He
n believed that the reasoning on that sub
q iect contained in the Feoeraist, which
e was the only commentary, and indeed
;. the only guide by which the People
" could have been governed in the adop
"A lion Of the Constitution, was the trU'
n construction of that instrument; and II
"A that even, before the Constitution wa
"a adopted, it was argued 10 the People ha
" wherever the concurrence oi The Pres'
"a dent and Senate was necessary for IN
re- appointment Of officers, that same con
ID currence would be equally necessary 10
Al their removal. And It seemed to hr
ii that this resulted from the pIainest prin
"a cipes OF common sense and Ingc; Io
;, the Constitution provided no power
he removal The power of removal WI
l.. nor mentioned in the Constitution; her
hc fore II was held TO result from the POI
no er of Appointment The power 10 AZ
!, poin, at pleasure necessarily implied II
-, mower 10 create a vacancy, 10 Ill 1t b
,is This appointment But. nasmuch as II
,as power which appointed was the Pres
a don, and Senate, it seemed necessal
dv consequence tina, that same power a
W not a part Of it, should be used for
- movaI as the one resulted from the oi
~ er. 1t had been said that j, had be-
,ot attempted by legislation 10 control II
& = power. On a subject Of so much lmpt
ho lance, on which there had such eIal
inn rate, eloquent, ingenious debate TAX
US place. he was surprised to find that
,oI. very important bill introduced INTO
o0d Senate by Mr. Calhoun in 1888, VIII
hn, m was intended TO control this suble
Nv Nv was not 10 be found among the prin
~; records of Congress, He had search
,ou for il in vain until he had found
40 40 manuscript copy Of that bill as rePor
by the Senator from South Carolina,
.Od the manuscript amendments made tt
w. before it was reported to tho Senate;
.nv he had found that the only prlnclp'e'
;noI that bill were. Rrst, that it repealed
a.on law that limits the tenure OF cer'
,ho officerstiI they should be found deli
mo- no ters, They oil being receivers OF
~ public money! and then required
President OF the United States, I"
'ete nominating to I'll such vacancies, to
"no sim to the Senate the reasons that
lha' caused the removal Of the incumbe
wa" This was tho whole substance oil
~ bill as it passed Inc senate ~ w
:, 'el be seen that Ihets was no principle
care serted in it which limited the Powe
so'u removal; and however he regretted
1'ua' this was the case, yet, as an honest
'ary after having fully aud carefully we
was ed the subject, he must say that II
'pos- ference 10 those officers the appolnlr
y 'h' Of whom by the Constitution was Ve
uoV in the President and Senate, II wa
toa' opinion that Congress possessed no
nmu- er over the power of appointment
0u'y' removal
70, in In regard to some of the object
Exc. which had been brought against lh'
II its port Of the committee Of Ways q M
God The FIRST, he believed, was, that Il
ydra not propose to provide any plan IoI
IN the security Of the public moneys.
asury this question had been argued o
monp sides as though there were now no
d that vision for furnishing embezzlers