Southern shield., 1850-06-29
FROM THE REPUBLIC. Removals from Off c e !.


 |vituperation by some of the leaders and fmany of the presses of the Opposition.- Far beyond all its contemporaries, in the Icoarseness of it's abuse and the vrulence of Its denunciaton of the President for his conduct in this respect, has been the Wash Iington Union. That journal cannot be |sincere; it's indignation is artifcial-manu- fractured for the occasion. The tears it has so profusely shed over these removals were Iall crocodile tears. In its heart, the Union must feel that the course of the President in regard to removals from office is in con- sonance with the principles laid down by Mir. Jefferson, sanctioned by Gen. Jackson, and down to the present time not repudi- ated, but recognised and practised upon by its own party as often as it getsinto power The inconsistency between the practice of that party when in power, and its course when out of power, in relation 10 removals from office, is so gross as to become ridcu- lous. There is now before the Senate a resolution calling upon the President to lay before that body "alI charges which have been preferred or filed in any of the De- partments against individuals who have been removed from office since the 4th day of March last, &c." Why, more than twenty years ago three several resolutions Involving the same principle were voted down during the same session of the same body, and by the same party--the party which is now in the ascendant in the Sen ate. During the first session of the twen- ty-first Congress, in the year 1880, Mir. Barton, of Missouri, introduced a resolution calling upon the President--Gen. Jackson for the reasons which induced him to re- move F'Theodore Hunt from the office of Recorder of Land Titles in Missouri, and also resolution calling upon the President for the reasons that induced him to remove James Carson, Register of the Land Office | at Palmyra, in the same State MT. Holmes introduced into the same body a series of resolutions on the subject of removals from office, the last of which requested the President "to communicate to the Senate | the number, names, and offices of the off, cers removed by him since the last session of the Senate, with the reasons for each removal" All of these resolutions, as well those offered by MT. Barton as those offered by MT. Holmes, were summarily laid on the table, or, in other words, promptly re- Ijected, by the majority. The same party are still in the majority in the Senate, and lit remains to be seen whether they will re- |pudiate and trample under foot the princi- lples which they avowed and acted upon when member of. their own party filled the Executive chair.
 While the subject was under the con- |sideration of the Senate, in 1880, our con- temporary of the Union, then of the Rich mond Enquirer, took occasion 10 express his views in regard to it, which may be found in the following extract:
 From the Richmond Enquirer, March g, 1880. "POWER OF REMOVAL.
 [:'The Senate was occupied again yester- lday, in secret session on Executive business. IOf the particulars of what was done, we have of course no accurate information. | Within the two days past number of nominations of subordinate civil officers and consuls abroad are understood to have been confirmed. Without yielding the question, as to the right of the Executive to create vacancies in office for the purpose | of making appointments, it seems to have been conceived by majority of the Senate, that the exercise of the authority is one which should, for the present, be left to the constitutional responsibility of the Execu- tive. Many such appointments have, there fore, been confrmed."
 l The above article is from the National InteMgencer of the Doth instant It is a new specimen of the art of mystifcation. Who shall decide from what motives the President does remoUe? Whether with a Uleao of making merely a meD appointment, or of making better appointment than the last, or of dismissing the last officer for want of qualifications, integrity, &c., Throwing aside then this adroit manner of stating the question, and bringing it down to the general naked propostion-has the President the po,oer of removal-we scarce | ly believe the National Intelligencer has given us the real facts of the case as before the Senate of the United States. The fright of renaoval was either involved in the late appointment or it was not If it was not, why has it been somuch argued both in closed and in open doors! lift was not, ] Ic,ac La I,4< L