The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-14

II was before Senate, provided that the sec
rotary Of the Treasury should be removed, or
removable al the will OF the President The ques-
uon was much discussed, and il was finally decided
in favor Of retaining the clause, as | remember by
the casting vote Of the president of the Senate, the
Vice President Of the United States, John Adams
Mr.. Madison led the debate on the same subject In
the other house and came to the conclusion, IN his
speech which reported by himself principally
upon the ground ofthe necessity ofgying this pow
er TO the President, 10 be acted upon on an emer.
gency, and for great and obvious public ends and
purposes IL was IN that discussion, If mistake
not, Mr.. Madison expressed the sentiment 10 which
the honorable member from South Carolina has al
luded-that any president who should remove from
Office a mertorOus officer guilty Of ne negligence or.
misconduct, but merely on political grounds, would
be worthy Of Impeachment Now, pressed by what
seemed to be the necessity Of the case, and relying
on the integrity upnghtness, and high honor Of the
President Of the United States through all times,
Mr.. Madison yielded to what appeared TO him an
argument Of necessity; and the two houses of Con-
sress did recognise the existence Of power Of re-
movsl in the President, although the power Of APP
pontment conferred by the constitution not on
the President solely but the President with the
assent and advice of the Senate In this way that
early decision did point Of fact introduce entire
anomaly because suppose that there Is no other gov
eminent the face Of tho earth, no regular govern
ment in which the power Of appointment subsists or
exists in one body or in one organization; and the
power Of removal at pleasure in another. hnd no
where in constitutional history know no form
Of government, except in this country, in which
the power Of removal is not considered as part and
parcel Of the power Of appointment. II gov
ernor, or president, or the head Of government,
under whatever title, have authority TO APP
point Office, and the officer shall hold at the will
and pleasure Of the appointing power, why then
the removal Of one man is effected by the appoint
ment of another and there is separate process Of
removal. That makes the great incongruIty-I had
almost said absurdity-of our course Of procedure.
There is no record kept in this government Of re-
mOyals from Office. How do we act here every
day. The President sends US here a nomination Of
A B, collector Of New York, in the place Of ID,
removed" When was c d removed" He
receives notice I'LL his comes with his
commission to take his place. The nomination is
not here supposed to create vacancy c d goes on,
and exercises the functions Of his Office till his sue
cessor comes. Sir, know that after the discussion
here in 1886, upon the passage through the Senate
Of the bill to which have referred persons of great
emnence, who never had had their attention turned
to the subject before fully Of opinion that the
original construction of the constitution was wrong,
and that the BILL if remember its provisions, requir
ed that whenever removals were made by the Presi-
dent, he should specify the cause Of that removal to
the Senate. And remember very we'll the history of
the bill Of 1890 believe it originated in the Senate
and that it advocated by two very distinguished
gentlemen (nelther Of them now llVlng)-both men
Of 2mlnence in their day-one from Rhode Island,
Mr.. - and the other from the State Of Maine,
[ MIR. HoLMEs.l They acted upon the ground OF
giving more responsibility, Of providing for greater
accuracy and promputude in the settlement of the
accounts Of Disturbing officers. But they did not
take political view Of the question at all They
never dreamed Of the great expansion they were
giving TO the Executive patronage Of the Chief Ma
aNft IA ,ha, haap 81, ,T
feet of the operation of this law When the term
Of service of worthy and mertorous public officer
expires not only is not considered 10 be unfair
improper 10 appoint him successor in some other
person. but II is considered not unfair or improper
turn him out, provided decent man be put in his
place. Now we all know that this is the unhappy
state in which this progress Of things has presented
this question to the country. To me it seems to be
very lamentable state OF things-a state of thirgs
having very penlcous tendency, and likely to
lead TO that constant contest-that constant success
sion of contest for political power which is snmula
ted and exerted more by personal motives than by
considerations Of public policy and general interest.
Now suppose, taking 1t for granted that there will
always be parties existing in free and popular
governments, all wise and sensible men will
admit that is Of great importance to the public in
terests that far possible these parties should
divide upon principle and upon measures, and not
upon men, and patronage, and private objects. In
other words, suppose every sensible man will ad-
nit that the less of personal motive which enters
into any one of elections the better for the
country. Now, my objection to the law Of 1890 il,
and always has been that it influences personal feel
personal motives-or that it brings
persons into the Of the contest by hundreds and
hundreds of thousands, stimulated by personal OBJ
jects-to hold Office for personal purposes, or to
obtain Office for personal purposes Sir, early in
the session suggested to an honorable friend from
Virginia, when conversng on this subject, that it
was my purpose during the session to revive the
bill which passed the Senate in 1896, and TO bring
the subject again before the consideration of the
Senate and the other house Of Congress, if could
any rate to bring it before the country. There
is not any fact or circumstance of more evil omen
existing amongst us than the great facility which
this four-year law practice of removal gives to the
executive government for the increase of his inhu
ence, and the stimulation of the motives to popular
agitation for mere personal purposes
Mr.. NJ CLAYTON said desire to say that
| have examined this subject; and, in my Judgment
the honorable senator from South Carolina has hit
the true remedy-the regulation by law of the pow
er of removal from Office; and think can easily
show that that power exists in Congress, and that
its exercise will not in any degree conflict with the
decision made in l7S9 to which the honorable
senator from Massachusetts has referred 1t 10 true,
as he says, that the decision Of that day was, that
the President must exercise power of removal,
anu lhu Tue IlSnt W TtlllONt tne oeCTeATy Vi lie
Treasury from office. That decision was made by
the Congress Of 1889, upon full debate and it was
in the course of that debate that Mr. Madison took
prominent and leading part 1t is not saying too
much that, for the reasons assigned by Mr.. Madl-
son, the decision was made In order to understand
the effect, full extent, and precise meaning Of the
decision; them we must look to the argument which
led Congress at that day to make it. Whoever
takes the pains as have done to examine that mat
ter, will be satisfied that the whole foundation on
which Congress then acted this that the con-
stitution Of the United States gave the President the
power to that the laws the United States were
properly executed. 1t was upon that construction
and a very latudnarian construction it was
given to that single clause of the constitution that
the Congress Of 1889 decided that the President
had this power ofremoval. From other cause and
on no other foundation the decision given All
that was said of the necessity Of removals from this
that and the other office, for this or that causea
was concentred in this great argument it was
necessary to remove the officer, because it was
cessary TO see that the laws were properly executed
1t was necessary to remove traitor from Office, be-
cause it necessary that the laws should DO pro-
nerly executed Now let US look at the remedy of
the senator from South Carolina-not at all conflict