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

10 against the bill; and, strange TO say, he could
not the name of the senator from Arkansas
among the yeas al all. Now, that was no party
proceedings the votes given on II were not gwen
for party purposes. Il was the Judgment Of the
Senate that some regulation should be made in the
executive power of removal; and that opinion was
founded upon the conviction that Congress could
regulate the removing power, and who could doubt
~ because, except where the constitution does not
prescribe the tenure Of Office il belongs Congress
to do He repeated, then, that act Of 1886,
passed by two-thirds Of the Senate, was no party
proceeding whatever; bill by which these propo-
sitions were affirmed: first that Congress might
regulate removal from Office by law; secondly, that
at that time, in 1896, such had been the history Of
parties, and such had been the inconvenience grow
ing out OF the practice, II was thought expedlent
to repeal the provisions Of the law of 1920, and
assume the regulation Of the business of removal
from Office.
Mr.. CALHOUN again arose, and after COM
planning of the reiteration by the senator of Arkan
sas Of a charge which he (Mr. c. had explicitly
corrected him IN before, and hoping he would not
repeat what false, he wen on to say that he al
ways thought the great and fundamental difference
between the popular and anu-popular parties related
TO executive patronage. He had always supposed
that men anxious 20 preserve a popular government
were disposed 10 limit II TO the smallest amount con-
sistent with efficiency. Now he would ask whether
al all times and use the unbounded power of
removal That was the simple question. Was the
President not 10 have IL TO be used for good cause
such as death and resignation, which could aford<
ample room for new appointments But he would
go further and say that the grave and whole
some doctrine was that when man in office had
under his control the whole patronage, such sys-
tenn went 10 make king. Every one knew that
such state Of things would be succession of
struggles between the ms and outs; and the irs be-
ing armed with power, would maintain and perpetu
ate that power. Every gentleman conyersaHt with
the history Of popular government knew that, and
yet there found in that body gentlemen pro.
claiming democratic doctrine directly the opposite
Mr. MANGUM made a few pertinent remarks
in opposition to the bill. He would be willing to
see the law abolished, but objected to this partial
repeal and partial Legislation. Mr.. NJ spoke al
some length TO the evils resulting from frequent
removals from office for mere political purposes
Mr.. r. JOHNSON commended that the security
Of the government consisted in the renewal Of the
bond al the end Of four years. IT, in this instance
they permitted the officer to hold his appointment
during the pleasure OF the Executive in ninety
cases out OF hundred the bond would never be
renewed or If deialcstion occurred the securities
would be found to be good for nothing. The SEN
ator from North Carolina, Mr. MASGUm, was
consistent. He opposed the whole system OF this
limited term OF service; but he (Mr. thought the
senator from New York, [Mr. DIX, was not CON
sstent in excepting the paymasters.
Mr.. HUNTINGTON wished TO add a single re-
mark in relation to what had fallen from his
friend from North Carolina. He was opposed to
striking out the section because he was opposed to
the bill Of 1920 on account Of its adding to the
power Of the Executive. He (Mr H. did not
think that that, whatever 1t might be in theory
practically an argument entitled TO much consdera-
ton. II the executive desired TO confer the spols
on its friends, it could do so, whether the term of
service was limited to four years not.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE approved entirely Of the
pile Of the law of 1920 1t afforded one of
the best guards that could be devised for the sec-
rity Of the government. But there was no rule to
which there was not proper exceptions, and it
seemed 10 him that IN the present instance the ex-
ception was proper. IL seemed to him that the OBJ.
ject of the honorable gentleman from New York
would involve the alternative of increasing greatly
the number Of paymasters now limited by law.
Ii required Of them that they should come here
or send their bonds TO receive the sanction Of the
Executive, without which they were rot competent
to act. The army now in Texas and the pay
masters with IT would be to-day in ofice-to-mor.
row, out Of office. Were the officers and troops to
be left without their pay He apprehended not.
What then must be the consequence Why an in
crease in the number Of the paymasters. He
thought that however excellent the rule might be as
to its principle and general application, in this
its application was not so proper, and therefore
that It ought to be so far repealed.
Mr.. BENTON made few remarks not audible
in the gallery.
expedient to repeal the law Of 1920 as applicable to
paymasers. He was opposed to making officers
permanent IN any case in which 1t could be avoid
ed
Mr.. CALHOUN then rose and latter few re-
marks not heard in the gallery said This ques-
ton may be viewed IN two aspects; first as to the
mere disbursement Of the public money; and sec
ondly, in regard to its political action. As regards
the first, the great and in fact the only security is
the three months law, requiring the dsbursng Off
to close their accounts at the end of every three
months. | speak from some experience of the
working of this law During my connexion with
the administration Of the government, never knew
it to fail in efecng its object As regards the pc,
litlcal bearing of this matter, ! concur entirely
in the opinions expressed by the honorable
senator from North Carolina. This law has
contributed more largely to work revolution in the
government of the United States than any other
law ever passed. To go back to the beginning
there was originally controversy whether the re-
moving power belonged to the President of the
United States not, and after long discussion It
was decided to be incidental to the execu,ive-in
my opinion, most erroneous opinion, and fraugh
with great mischief During that dscusslon--if my
memory serves me rght-Mr. Madison expressed
the opinion that the removal Of mertorous officer
not guilty OF any neglect OF duty, by the EXecu-
tive, would be an Improbable offence. Substan-
TALLY that acted upon ill a very late PERIOD and
the overthrow Of that principle, to use the expires
sion of the senator from North Carolina has laid
the foundation Of the "spols SYSTEM" for
IT was much more easy thing after
the expiration Of four years to drop an officer and
send another to his place, than to turn him out
From that the principle has extended and extended
till literally our government has become govern
ment of spos. Your presidential elections are gov.
erned by and 1t has conducted this government in
the downward road to ruin. The evil tendency of
that principle has been often described on the floor
of Congress. 1t has come to ,his that every four
years there il revolution of parties in the United
States. You make expenditure annually, say OF
twenty-five millions Of dollars, and in the four years
Of one hundred millions. This is vast sum IN the
hands of the Executive, and, on the spois-prncipe
it becomes great prize to be obtained at every
presidential election. Now, the ofice-hoders have
the greatest interest to maintain their position, and
those who desire Office on the other hand, have the
strongest motives to struggle hard in getting PresI
dent Thus the presidential election becomes con-
fict between these two parties-those out of office
being the most numerous, prove the strongest, and
the office expecants defeat the ofice-hoIders. A