The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-03-18

For the Union.
Does the act creating The Department Of the Interior dis
organize the several bureaus of mhtch composed
and impose upon the Secretary the duty of orgdnisa-
ton?
The correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, 'IoN" who
is also known to be the correspondent of the Journal of
Commerce. is constantly reeratng the statement that the
Secretary of the Interior has construed the act creating
his department in such as, in effect to disor-
necessity of appointing all the officers and clerks
employed in those bureaus; which appointments he
claims to have been vested by the law in himself
That oN' is mistaken in the view he has taken of the
opinions of Mr.. Ewing, in reference to his powers I'M
der the law, have no doubt The act creating the
Department of the Interior will bear such construction
created by simply transferring to it certain bureaus from
other departments the bureaus themselves preserving
their organization as they existed before the depart
ment was created. There is no Reorganization, but a
mere transfer of the bureaus.
With regard to the opinion which "IoN" alleges the
Secretary to formed in relation to his powers of
appointment and removal of the officers attached the
bureaus of his department, have doubt he is totally
in error The new act merely gives the Secretary the
same powers of appointment and removal over the
clerks transferred to his department the Secretaries of
the departments to which they formerly belonged pos
sessed A portion of the clerks transferred from the
Treasury Department were subject to the appointment
and removal of the Secretary of the Treasury. The
clerks Of the Indian bureau may have been subject
to the appointment and removal of the Secretary OF
War Clerks thus situated, MIR. Ewing undoubtedly
reaus constructed on different principles. The laws
creating those bureaus which have not been repealed by
the new law. vest the power of appointment in their
respective headssubect to the approval of the Secretary
of the department to which they belong Their power Of
removal is absolute.
If this view OF the powers of the Secretary of the De-
parment OF the Interior is correct, Mr.. Ewing has
power appoint clerks in any bureau which
the Secretaries of the departments to which attached
had not the power And that it is correct, appears
cusively from the act creating the department, and from
the debate in the Senate upon the bill before it became
law
Mr. Ewing, in my opinion is too good lawyer and
too shrewd man, to have hazarded the opinion which
lion" ascribes to him. and which, if carried out would
be violation of law, and the rights of those persons
who would be affected, that would subject him to the
liability of impeachment ! do not believe that Mr.
Ewing desires, or intends, TO commit such fragrant
usurpaon of power. On the contrary do not believe
that the abors which he has had encounter
in organizing his department. have yet allowed him time
tn determine the OF the powers which he pos
under the law in relation to the bureaus
ferred 10 his department from other departments When
he examines the subject deliberately, have doubt he
will differ very widely from the sage conclusions
ulary expressed by the erulite and profound IoN"
LEX SCRtPTA.