The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-06


have not been removed for difference o political
opnioni call upon senators who agree in opinion with
those who have been thrust from oicemen respected Tor
their purity OF character, and for the fidelity with which
they performed the duties OF their ofceo say whether
IN lace OF that ayowa notmade at remote period but
reiterated here in the Senate within few days they are
willing their friends shall be thus assaied without call
or the charges upon which they have been prescribed
think that we owe It to the men thus removed to do
something for their vindIcatl0n. do not complain OF
their removal but OF the fact that il is charged from the
highest authority, and by gentlemen here who sup
posed TO be in the confidence of the Executive that these
removals have not been made without other than
mere political opinion. Shall give up the passage oil
this resolution which calls for these changes trust
rights Of the President Indefinite charges reiterated
IN the dark, and when called for they withheld.
Without further rcmark-for intended say nothing
to-dayI submit to those who occupy relations friend
y TO those who have been thus removed, whether they
can perform their duties satisfactorily themselves in
resolution 4 stated early IA Ills debate that 4 those
individuals removed from Office could have their reputa
ton vindcated BY the acknowledgment that their ejec
ton from Office had been made account of difference
OF political 0plnion the resolution should be with
drawn Instead of that, have the reeraton Of the
charges made through the public press here in the Senate
BY the high authority OF the senator from Tennessee
have endeavored TO discharge my duty and now leave
the subject for the action Of the Senate.
Mr.. WEBSTER. The last remaIk OF the honorable
senator from Name seems TO be rather singular. He
says he does not complain 80 much OF the removals
Of the avowa made by persons Of character and standing
that the removals were for cause. that were 80, he
had better call upon those for the for
such avowal than to cali upon the President
am rather surprised, confess, at the general tenor OF
the honorable senator's remarks in regard to the bill OF
1885, and the debate that took place that occasion
With great submission to the honorable senator, must
say that there is not the slightest analogy resemblance
between that proceeding and his proceeding Of this day
What that doubtful construction OF the consti.
tuition tuition had been settled By law Well the law had
law might be modifedhat law might be amended, and
that which had been accomplished by law could have
been annulsd by law, in whole or in part. For what
purpose was the provision in the bill OF 1885, Why. il
was 10 pass law the subjectmatteT as the law
Of 1850, and TO qualify the general power which that law
OF 1859 recognised being in the President That
all And if that law had passed in 1885, then the state
OF the law would have been different from what It is
dsent from what il Is now But that law did not pass,
and there has been legal qualification OF the decision
OF 1889, and that decision, therefore, stands it was
made and has been pacsed upon from that day 70 this
Now, the genemans present ground Is, for one branch
Of the legislature not TO pass law. general rule. Tegu
y il He does not forward
such proposition as that; but allowing the constitutional
authority to remain as the law Of 1889 adudged italow
ing the power OF removal to exist the President his idea
that branch Of the Legislature, in particular
in particular administration may call for for the
manner in which removals have been made Certainly
II requires particular dscernment TO see that this
luton bears analogy whatever to the proposition in the
bill OF 1885. That was proceeding TO regulate the
power OF removal BY law this Is proceeding Tor one
branch OF the legislature to inquire into the exercise OF
the power of removal unreguated and standing just IL
stood from the first session OF Congress to the present
Time NOW, must De permed 10 tnat tldt broad
enough for the comprehension OF any body and everybody
and must express my surprise that il has escaped the
comprehension OF the honorable senator from Maine
His object not TO amend the law respecting removals
from Office, but TO let stand is-leaye the power
acknowledged in the hands of the President but still call
upon him Tor the manner in which he exercises that
power. As TO these 10000 removals, know nothing oil
that
have forborne to go into what could have been con-
the first place. that the removals have been mostly that
class OF officers that have been increased tenod in the
last half OF the duration Of this government
One word more i undertake 10 say again, that this
is without precedent The resolutions OF the House
of Representatives furnish no precedent They called
s q %
resolution II il passes will have an answer and il must
have that will put the Senate, by the result
the wrong, and do not wish 10 have that take place
Mr. BRADBURY. One word, Mr.. President. The
construction given to the constitution o SO was not BY
an act II was construction given BY the adoption ol
resolution moved by Mr.. Madison, in the following
words
That there shall be established executive Department.
TO be denominsted Department OF Foreign Affairs; at
Secretary the Administration Of Foreign Affairs, who
shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice
idst.
The debate sprung up upon the concluding words
OF the resolution. Now, in regard TO the distinc-
iion which the honorable senator from Massaehu.
word The inquiry relates TO the constitutional rights OF
the President, and what would be invasion OF those
III ffesldent possesses tne power
independently Of the Senate that make no inqn.
ry, and call for reasons, then would submit to the
honorable senator from Massaeh usetts. whether would
him for reasons for removal Must not the law be sub
ordinate 10 the constitution II il invaded the consiiu-
tional rights OF the President il would be yod-woud
IL notl f3.e#
Mr. WEBSTER. will answer the gendeman's IN
qury All meant 10 say is this that the President pos
sesses the power OF removal Il is allowed by the
stution and law II there is law 10 restrain the ex-
ercise Of the power Of removal he may exercise Ger
tainy that is not in this He may exercise the
power Of removal II the existing law indicates reeogn,
such right But then that s not inconsistent with
the idea that as law is supposed 70 have confirm
ed and acknowledged the right, another law may quai
fy H. But az no such law has passed, the whole pow
er is centred in his hands, to be exercised according 10
his discretion.
Mr. BRADBURY Then II would seem, from tbe
exclamation OF the honorable senator that the ground
upon which he places his objection 10 the resolution -,
that there is law requiring the President TO give
sponse and the ground that such law would be
an invasion Of his rights II is most pspabe, then that
Congress can pass such law and that BY the rights Of
the President not invaded the resolution - no inva
sion OF his rights. A law may be passed IN The terms
by the act OF 1885, requiring the President
when he sends in nomination Tor an appointment, 10
staie his reasons for the removal OF the predecessor
As I now understand the honorable senator, we can
make the call on the President, and he say reply
1 am bound by no idw to answer, and will do as !
choose Well, et adopt the resolution II the Pes-
dent shall reply that he is bound by nols0 70 answer al
though il is no invasion OF his constitutional rghts, am
conten, 10 take that answer, he chooses 10 give IT,
TMr BELL addressed the Senate. His remarks, nav