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

of The SENATE itself on that very question. Ii he
(Mr. NJ did not mistake, the Senate OF me uhileo
States had denied that the power existed, and had
sdonted resolution denying the power OF the Pres
dept of the United States and regulating the power
as beId by him in conjunction with the Senate Of
The limited States. He trusted the senator from
Massachusetts, would persist in his determination,
and as far as he (Mr. nj was concerned, he would
give him all the support he could give. He would
content HIMSELF then, with the observations he had
already made, but would again take the opportunity
Of discussing the subject when IL came up in a form
admissible OF more extensive argument
Mr.. SEWER thought it very strange
that, about the first session of every i'd
mlnlStrauon they were favored with that old ques-
uon about removal from Office. In 1886, Il so hap
pened to entertain different political sentiments from
the President and il then the resolution referred
10 by the senator from Kentucky was passed. lie
made removals that did not meet their sanction, and
they were disposed to resist them. Since that time
the senator's from Massachusetts Mr. DAVIS, and
from South Carolina, Mr. CALHoUs,l had given
their commentaries on IT, (Mr. s. here made an
ausisn to the practice Of Mr.. Tyler, and associated
Mr.. CALHOUE's name, Secretary Of State, there
With the exact words were not heard).
Mr.. CALHOUN arose to say that, when he went
INTO the Department of State, under Mr.. Tyler, he
was IN entire ignorance Of the practice spoken of
lie knew nothing about it, and had always been OPP
posed 70 the practices charged upon Mr.. Tyler la
regard TO removals. lie condemned II as much In
him as any other and the senator from Arkansas
was one Of the last on that floor from whom he
would expect such a charge TO come
Mr. SEWER made few remarks; among the
rest he observed, that Mr., Tyler continued TO make
removals down to the very last day he was in
Office.
Mr.. CALHOUN again arose, and reminded the
senator from Arkansas, that he (Mr. c. had al
ready condemned the practice. Mr.. Tyler was in
the habit Of making his own removals and appoint.
ments, and was told by him (Mr c. that it was
new and unwananted practice, and one to which
had he Leen a new member Of the administration, he
would not consent TO.
Mr. M0REH FAD asked permission to make one
remark. He, (Mr M. y as member OF his com
mlttee, had occasion TO be up eccasonaly at the
State Department during Mr.. Tyler's admnistra-
uon, and happened TO know something Of the views
Of the honorable senator from South Carolina, Mr..
CALHoUE,l and he remembered the opinions ex-
pressed then to him by the honorable senator were
exactly the same as those expressed on that occa-
sion to the Senate.
Mr.. SEWER then went on TO say, that in making
the remarks he had made, he supposed the action
ofthe executive the action ofall parts of II. He
referred to particular person-not TO the senator
from South Carolina, but TO the administration OF
which he formed part. He said again, that the
subject Of removals general subject Of remark
When party came into power, they had the
old story that begun in 1883, renewed in 1888,
and continued in 1886, and on down till the pres
consistency their side, to say nothing about 1t in
lS4l.
Mr. SEWER, who was very indstinctly heard
owing to hs speaking at and to senators instead o.
the President, made here some observation which
called from Mr. WEBSTER the remark, 81 had no
- office to give
Mr. S. continued to say that he alluded to those
facts to show that those distinguished gentlemen
formed part Of Mr.. Tyers cabinet. If they looked
at the yeas and nays Of 1889, they would find every
democrat voting to sustain that power Of remov
al Now, it so happened, that on this question
Of removal some persons differed from their friends
lie had gone on very WELL and had come down to
the good democratic doctrine Of short tenures OF
ofice-immedlate responsibility to the people-and
he was not willing TO commence retrograde move
ment Short tenures OF Office were necessary 10 the
maintenance of the liberties Of the country. When
the oice-holders formed such small proportion TO
the great of the PEOPLE, there very little
danger indeed that the liberties Of the country could
he endangered by the exercise Of the executive
patronage Whenever it was known that man
~ seeking Office, his influence was gone. That
nd been what he (Mr. 81 had always seen in his
~xperence. But he hoped that this question Of
removal from office would not be allowed to EN-
barrass the bill before the Senate. When the sub
ject came regularly before the body by resolution
or BILL il would be proper enough to discuss it.
Mr. WEBSTER arose and said, the few obser
vations which had occurred to-day on the bill by
him, whether right wrong were not intended TO
apply to any individual. The honorable senator
from Arkansas would do him the justice to say that
he (Mr w } did not impute to any administration,
of the whole succession Of administrations, any
thing in the nature of charge Of having carried
the practice of removal from office further than their
predecessors successors. The senator would
admit, he sure, that the remarks he submitted
were devoid of all personality And now he would
take occasion to say that it not like the answer
of a statesman to what he (Mr. W. had advanced
for the gentleman to say that the administration in
which he (Mr. W. had borne part had done so
suppose that to be true Why, if the administra-
ton, of which he might happen to think very wei,
in some respects at least had been induced to fol-
low a bad practice, that was only stronger
reason why the practice should be put an
end to. No reason had been shown why ind-
yidua in a subordinate situation, in administra-
tion ought to be held responsible for its policy Bn
perhaps there another remark which he might
make with all respect The administration to which
the gentleman referred; he should have said perhaps
that administration did make changes in OF.
fee not altogether dsagreeable to the gentleman
himself
Mr.. SEWER. Certainly; and stood by him
to the last.
Mr. WEBSTER. And the honorable gentleman
had good reason for it, But it was said that the OPP
posite doctrine 10 that of removal led to life-holders
Of office, &c Far, far otherwise was the whole
truth This government recognised no life officers but
If Judges and they subject to the qualifications
the Judiciary department was supposed, by those
yho framrd the constitution, was best secured by
giving IN independent tenure Of ofice;and however
the opinion may have changed in certain parts of the
country, il certainly still the established one
within the hounds Of the old thirteen States. They
borrowed it from the English law about the
accession Of George !. In the bill which, in 1896,
PASSED the Senate, and to which he had referred, 1t
was not proposed after the lapse of so many years,
to oppose the constru con which enables the Presl
dent to from office. The object Of the bill in
troduced by the honorable senator from South Car
DINA, and which he then had before him, was as
he had stated, and he would refer to it as it was
short.
BILL repeal the first and second sections of Act to
limit the term of Office of certain officers therein named
and for other purposes" approved the fifteenth of May
thousand eight hundred and twenty and for other
purposes.
Be cIhcsd by the Senate and House Of Representatives
Of N, Gded S'afe oj 3mercn in Congress assembled, That
the end second sections Of act entitled An act to
limit the Term Of of certain officers therein
and Tor purposes" approved the fifteenth Of May