The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-01-09


election Till September nextn other words. 10
tnue all the wing officers Of the House now holding over
But il son blown sky-high; for received only
10 votes, and there against it 10 -every affirmative
vote being, we understand. wing The very supposion
that the present House of Representatives are unable TO
elect their officers for themselves and the very fact that
they compelled TO take up with the ncumbens which
left 10 them by the last session. whose election the
majority of the present House had no participation and
whom member Of the last Congress supposed that
he was voting in for the present House, would be
grievous reflection upon the present Congress, well
upon republican institutions 1t scarcely COMFORTS
with the high character Of the House Of Representatives
to take up with the casto clothes OF their predecessors
Mr.. Bradbury's observation-disclosures Taylor his
Pledges against Removals.
The introduction by Mr. Bradbury of his resolution,
calling upon General Taylor for the causes OF removal
in the numerous Of prescription pracsed BY him
and by his cabinet in his nane has called forth consider
able comment from the conductors Of the federal press
They affect not to the justice the propety OF the
resolution. They contend that General Taylor has only
followed the examples Of his predecessors and there
fore there is no more propriety justice in calling
upon him for the Of his removals than there
was calling upon his predecessors for their for
similar acts. To show the nature Of the objections
which the conductors OF the federal press make the
proposed by Senator Bradbury, we copy the fol-
lowing paragraph from the Baltimore Clipper which we
found in the columns of the National Iaeigencer thus
receiving the endorsement of the latter Journal The
Clipper says:
We cannot see any JUST for calling President
Taylor for the appointments which he has m ade
lie has followed the example OF his lnstious predeces-
sors IN removing aud appointing others and If
the public Offices equally distributed between
the parties than they his TO Office he
is not chargeable with prescription deviation from
patriotic IL would hardly be expected that he
wonld make no removals when he found the Off princ
paiy occupied by men OF one patty IL unjust dis
tibuton Of power; and, ii he had other
sign for the removals hch has than the desire 10
ap2oon the Offices equally between the two parties
no would stand justified before his country"
Now, we will explain, in few WORDS the reasons which
make just and proper for calling General Taylor "lo
for the appointments which he has made" They
are briefly as follows:
First He pledged himself in repeated letters written
in his name both before and after his nomination, that
he would remove no man for his opinions He not only
made these pledges, but his advocates and supporters
reiterated and confirmed them His Secretary of State
the Hon. John NJ Clayton, publicly in the Senate ree-
rated and confirmed them. And the man to whom he |
mainly owes his nomination Governor Crittenden OF
Kentucky-in numerous speeches, and in the most en-
phatic manner. reiterated and confirmed them
Second In his inaugural address General Taylor in
substance, repeated those pledges He then declared
presence OF God and the people, that he would "make
honesty, capacity and fidelity indispensable prerequisites
10 the bestowal OF Office and the absence Of either Of
these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause for re-
moval"
Third After the system OF prescription was com.
nenced by General Taylor and his cabinet his organ
one OF the editors OF which was imported by him from
New Orleans TO conduct his confidential paper-openly
aud repeatedly declared that there was no removal made
except for cause.
Fourth. And in conformity with this understanding and
Interpretation of General rayors pledges and the decla
ration Of his inaugural address upon the subject OF appoint
nents and removals. the heads Of departments required
thai whsn Of their party called for the removal Of
democrat Of removal should be alleged against
him, or he pouid NOT Be removed We know this 10 be
so for had il from wing member Of Congress Be-
sides, notorious fact which, we presume, will no,
be denied by TIE cabinet nor by any Of its members
Now, setting aside the personal breach OF yeracty
and honor which these pledges and their violation in
volve the part OF General Taylor and his prominent
every removal also involved an implied charge
either Of want OF honesty capacity or fidelity, in the
person removed.
They bear no other Interpretation Gen. Taylor
and solemny assured the people, in his own
name, and Messs Clayton, Crtenden. and others, reit
Grated these in public speeches and addresses
that no man would be removed by him for opinions
sake--.that prescription itself should be prescribed
These declarations and pledges were substantially re.
affirmed by the specification OF the causes OF REMOVAL in
The inaugural address Therefore, the inference was IT.
resstbe, that every removed by Gen Taylor, or the
cabinet under him, removed for causc-for want of
either honesty, capacity fidelity The practice OF the
cabinet also in conformity with this Interpretation Of
the pledges, nasmuch the secretaries required specific
charges be alleged against every person to be removed
and such the official declaration Of the organ OF the
cabinet Therefore query remora Of democrat implied
an Infamous dsgracefm charge against him, which
'oisbeRous not, according 10 hs truth Of the fact thus
officially alleged
Now, have not the thousands OF democrats prescribed
by this administration, under circumstances involving
gnominy as well as insult right to demand that the
base Official caumny implied by the fact OF removal shall
be either repelled or reraciedi And have they not
right to look to the Senate, majority Of whom repre-
sent the democratic party and who have the power 10
vndcae the characters OF the prescribed for redress and