The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-20

ton IN relation to removals from Office now pending be-
fore the Senate in which the editors OF the court journal
attempt to show that General Taylor is very averse to
removals. and that he has, fact, been guilty OF no pro-
scrpton. The cabinet organ puts the defence OF Gen.
Taylor upon the following grounds, viz: that when he
came into the presidency he found the offices OF the gov.
eminent filled with his POLITICAL opponents; that his poit-
cal friends had all been prescribed and osracised from
public Office by democratic Presidents, commencing with
General Jackson; that there many corrupt and in
competent persons in Office who ought to have been re-
moved and that there other persons holding office
who had participated in the elections and therefore ought
to be removed This is the substance OF heplea OF JUS
caton put forth by the cabinet organ in defence Of Gen.
Taylor for the ruthless, remorseess, and unprecedented
prescription practised in his and with his consent
under his administration.
The cabinet organ, after setting forth the facts upon
which it usfes the conduct and Inconsistencies Of Gen
Taylor proceeds admit the law and usage with regard
to removals. for which the democrats have always
tended II says m is too late deny or doubt the right
of the President under the constitution, to at
his pleasure That point defnitvely settled years
ago by competent authority Thus the law is admitted
We will now proceed to reply to both the facts and the
law set up by the organ in defence and justification of
the conduct Of General Taylor touching the subject of
removals from Office And FIRST with regard to the facts
We deny them forth by the cabinet organ II is
not true that when General Taylor into Office, he
found all OF the places under the government filled with
his political opponents is it true that his political
friends the whgs all prescribed and removed AN
der the administrations Of General Jackson and subse
quent democratic Presidents When Gen. Taylor came
into the presidency the fact is that nearly e-haf OF
the hundred Offices under the government in this
city were filed with wings and the opponents of the
preceding democratic administration AT the time Gen
Jackson nauguated than three ourths OF the
government Offices in this city held by wings and
but few removed. Since then the number of off
has been doubled and the government having been
nearly all the time in the hands Of the democracy very
probably more than one-half of the new offices were
given to democrats, although wings were appointed to
many OF them; and in that way the democrats gained
aprepoaderance il they actually had it, the Inaugural
ton Of General Taylor. We know of the repeated APP
pontment of wings The best Offices under the admins
traton Of Mr. Polk Therefore General Taylor finds but
little justification in the practice of preceding admins
traons far the offices in this District are concerned
But admitting the facts to be stated by the Republic
with regard to the practice of preceding democratic adj
minstraons respecting removals. and that the state OF
things supposed by that paper actually existed the
time of General Tayor's Inauguration, il furnishes no
ground of justification for himself or the leaders Of his
party. Both he and they had themselves of from the
right plead those facts in justification OF their subse
quent conduct. He knew if he possessed an amount OF
knowledge of public affairs which every intelligent farm
and mechanic in this country possesses that before he
elected the very state of things with regard TO the
public offices existed to remedy which his advocates
now justify the wholesale and sweeping prescription OF
which he has been guilty. And yet, with the knowl
edge OF this factvz that large majority OF the offices
were held by his political opponents-he proceeded to
make solemn pledges, upon the honor OF a soldier and
the faith OF man, that he would remove no one for
opinions sake. Nay, he went further on the day Of his
Inauguration, in the presence OF the American people,
with the oath OF God warm upon his lips, he solenny
assured his countymen in his inaugural address, that
the want OF honesty, fidelity or capacity" should be
the only cause Of removal Naming no other in the
category OF causes. he guilty OF dishonesty il he in
tended any other. General Taylor is, therefore, precu.
ded from pleading the practice OF former administrations
and the fact that majority OF the Offices held BY
his political opponents, in defence Of his subsequent ruth
less and sweeping system OF prescription.
And, in like manner, all the leaders Of the wing party,
his advisers and counseors precluded from awaiting
themselves Of the defence which is sought to be
upfor General Taylor. They made similar pledges for him
and for themselves Messrs Crtenden and Clayton the
two men most instrumental in putting away Mr.. Clay,
and bringing forward General Taylor, made similar
pledges for him, has authority, and in his name The
entire wing press of the country took the same course
Nay, both the leaders and the organs OF the wing party
went further they advocated the election OF General
Taylor on The express ground that he would do away
with the system Of political prescription which they al
legei had been introduced and praciised under demo
cratic administrations and they invoked the sufrages Of
the people for General Taylor, the very ground that he
was to prescribe prescription, and introduce reform
in The government in respect TO this particular subject
Thus both General Taylor and the leaders Of the wing
party precuded from the defence which the cabinet
organ sets up for them; and in view Of the facts,
we are astonshed at the holiness and efronery with
which this defence is put forth. Il only shows that the
men now in power and the organ through which they
speak, havea most sovereign contempt for intelligence,
sagacy, and integrity Of the American people SO much
for the facts.
With regard 10 the law and usage concerning removals.
we have but little TO say. The Republic says il is now
too late to deny doubt the Presidents right to remove
having been long ago settled by competent authority
We do not deny doubt it, II is the doctrine for
which have always conended that is, we have con
tended for his right, under the constitution, to remove