The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1844-02-15
WASHINGTON. JAN,Y 81.

We learn from the Baltimore Patriot that
Mr.. Porter has been rejected by the Senate
as Secretary of War, and Mr.. Spencer
for seat on the Supreme Bench. The Pa
triot say
The rejection of MIR. Spencer was too well
settled as inevitable, yet it was received with
satisfaction somewhat deeper, think, than
that of any similar action which preceded
it. The Senate might well have refused to
confirm the nomination of any man to high
Office who was already in one equally high.
Rely upon it although the numerous rejec-
tons by the Independent Senate may seem
to warrant suspicious of personal prejudice or
caprice, such suspicious are not property
grounded. The nomination was notorious
ly made upon the principle made by Mr..
Gushing In his famous ssauction speech" and
an infexibility and yirtuons Senate could
not but reject them. In the case of Mr..
Spencer it may be remarked that, although
his mere ability to fill almost any place is
unquestioned, he is peculiarly unfit for the
calm and lofty station of the Supreme bench
he is arbitrary and overbearing in manner
to degree that makes him intolerable any
where, and would, on the bench, be most
serious grievance to all who came in contact
with him. 1t is not uncharitable to suppose
that the President was actuated, in his NOM
nation, more by a desire TO be nd of him
from the Cabinet, than by any sincere inter-
est for the good of the country. The last
appointment to the Supreme Court was of
character tomake US hope that the next will
be better. This Court furnishes that point
in our Republican system of government to-
wards which the wise and good look with
confidence as the last barrier to arrest an
archy and rebellion whenever they Gomez
The time may arrive when the waves of pop
ular commotion, dashing over all other OBJ
stacles, will break at the feet of this Tribu-
nal, and roll harmless back. Any appoint
ment to this great embodiment of the Civil
power, cannot pass too severe an ordeal.
The Secretaries Henshaw and Porter,
are still exercising the functions of the Offices
from which they have been discarded BY the
Senate. They received their commissions
in the recess, and by the Constitution these
do not expire until the end of this session,
but certainly their continuance in Office IS
highly indicate on their part, if not also II
regular Had they been confirmed by the
Senate, it would have been necessary TO
make out new commissions, and require a
new official oath, and new security, for ii has
been held, Wheaton, 100 United States vs..
Kirkpatrick, that persons bound for the good
conduct of an officer on his first appointment,
are not responsible after the date of the Sc
cond commission, which virtually suspends
the first.
The Senate might have the whole session
to deliberate upon the fitness of these noml-
nations, and pending their delberatlon, the
nominees might have very properly have per-
formed the duties of their Offices, but the
| Senate has now acted-it has determined
not TO do that which would have perfected
their appointment, and it seems to me they
are now finctus o6fcio. Z. I'll. U.
/ TOur correspondent is wrong as TO the va
! lidity of Messrs Henshaw and Porter contin-
uing to exercise the duties of the Offices
they hold A commission granted during
the recess, is vaEd till the end ofthe session
of the Senate held thereafter. Had they
been confirmed, new commission would
issued, because the confirmation extends
the appointment 10 four years, or until re-
moved. The confirmation of the Senate
works, in fact a new appointment, requires
new commission, and perhaps the renewal of
the official oath-but heads of departments
do not give security. The indelicacy, how
ever, of Messrs Porter and Henshaw, hold
ing on after they have been rejected, is an
other thing. Perhaps they are anxious TO
to give up Office, but others cannot be found
Ito take their places.