The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-02-05


iN mf ussassry's Rsssaasssa. re- . &
The vote In the Senate upon the question Of laying
Mr. Bradburys resolution on the table weg % Aeerly
strict party vote that may be as such fof ~ ne
putsos{s q sEuent upon the justice and prophecy
|. i insisted BY some h BON psatss have changed
places upon the question involved, sfne1 1884 tha
that The democrats, 10 maintain their constituency now
should drop the call and then the wings would preserve
theirs BY having nothing more TO say about u deny
and contend that before Inconsistency be successfully
charged upon Them the must be shown TO be anal
ogous. Now, what are the facts
In 1854 i was mol pretended BY the wings ina, .as.r
on any violation Of his pledges No one presumed to say
that Gen jackson came into Office with any professions
whatever his lips, upon the subject OF appointments
They insisted that the executive functions OF the Senate
not merely Of negative character but that being
part Of the appointing power they had the right under
from Office before they could be called on TO sanction the
new appointments This was the burden Of their afga-
ment; this was the reason why Mr. Clayton avowed ne
tun, until the reasons for the removal were communi,
Gated with the nomination II was an argument broad
and comprehensive reaching the question OF right on me
part OF the Senate to demand reasons for removals. IN ts
utmost latitude II reaches the presented 10 the
Senate exactly.
How was il with the democrats in 1882 They denied
the affirmative fight contended for and insisted that the
theory Of the constitution and the practice Of every admin
istraton under it, limited the power OF the Senate to
mere negative upon the nominations. Do they abandon
this position now, and assume that maintained by the
wings in ls34l Not at ALL The resolution Of Mr. Brad
bury is as though they admitted the right OF the Pres
dent to appoint and their right simply to reject but mas
much they are part OF the appointing power and %
Gen Taylor had pledged himself, unsolicited uhe only
question in his mind before the country Of sufficient i'm
portance TO require pledge) that removals would be
made for official delinquency only, and as men supposed
be honest and faithful public servants have been dis
missed without any known cause therefore they request
that the charges against the late ncumbents which no
doubt are on file, may be communicated.
And TO show the position Of democratic senators now
their arguments must be taken In connexon with the
resolution under discussion They say they do not COM
plain OF General Toyors removals per se Nor do they
claim for the Senate the absolute right commended for BY
the wings in '34 But they say they bound officially
to believe that General Taylor has been true to his
pledges that the proofs Of official delinquency the
part of officers heretofore supposed TO be faithful public
servants and dismissed, must be in his possession
and as part of the appointing power, they respectfully
ask that they may be communicated At the same tune
they say let it be admitted that the removals made
upon party grounds alone if that be true. that the late
malconduct in Office and is enoughthe call shall be
dismissed Is there anything unreasonable in this any
trenchng upon Presidential prerogatve in this! Nay
more: is there any inconsistency IN this position with
that taken by democratic senators in 1884 None what
The call is proper one, demanded by every con;
sderaton OF justice to the prescribed. under implied
sentence OF condemnation. In view Of the pledges Of
General Taylor the Senate and the whole country have
right to demand one Of two things: the reasons for
the removals, the admission that they have been dis
missed for opinions sake alone.