Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-05-04

Mr. BaABHuar. Not . large aamssr. sir. iaaghrt
Mr.. BsIL. Let the same inqey BE- made - sss'snss y
every State Of The Unisn. and the rePoase wea Lies
And cannot refrain hom saying. andef AZ shs as s1r
ted or Disclosed and estsbshed eonnsctd nIh ths s
that the speech o the honorable senator. snd 81 Ihs ss
by which be- has sought 10 sGssia Ls asrA sh 10
course of the President a. Isosi extraordinary % not
soy that the o. The matter q tne ethaia
improper for debate, unParaDshtsEy J mean y sAy.
that is eItraordnary and surprising ihAi msnhsf
the Democratic party, holding 20 ne Ptneil lss q IA
party the subject u removals om Shes, should p~r-
sist in these attacks.
There 10 one other question eenaece wiiA lae susri
before the Senate that wish 20 sag ks sosds nVont
How can the senator from Maine. any u BIZ ps''ssA
friends, with any consistency o. soPtsy sUfP rsse-
luton calling for the upon whish tsms.
walls from Office have been made by the Pssidcn. when
il is well known that the Democrats party has ia tssn
years pis resisted all such calls when pfsPood BY saff o
ponents. The In bis frsi speech nToa hs s1c,
took the ground that te Jackson party IN 1885, whsn Vas
question fully considered, bal so'ed down ses's
OF resolutions offered BY Mr Holmes in the Senate. making
similar call because some Of the resolutions snaced matter
orsign 10 The obec, . -sz end we're y ehsr
respects and therefore the senaor coaeiaasa 80. 1
JacKscn now Democratic party not committed against
such calls But the Senator cannot sh Ter hmssh aud hs
end under the assumption Of the facts stated 10 felst'cn 70
the resolutions Of Mr. Holmes AZ the same session oi Ccn
gress Mr. Barton, then Senator from Missouri offered sin
gle resolution calling upon the President TO eonmanicae %
the Senate his for removing The kec0der
of Land Titles in that State. forget bis The sen
from Wisconsin (Mr. DopGE) the senator rem MIS-
souri, (Mr BESTos) may recolect his uame beiesef vas
Carson. (Mr BEsToS asseu'ej The argument upon
which the call resisted BY the Jackson mebers IN the
general debate which took place upon that and Mr. Holmes
resolutions that the power Of removal absolute and
discretionary in the President by the constitution That be
alone responsible that the Senate had no right 10 De
mand his for doing act exclusively within bis
power and control that the Senate had other power ~
the matter Of removals from and appointments TO Office, than
to reject confirm the appointments when the President
nominated But Mr. Barton, in the Of Carson, took
the identical ground in favor Of the proprey Of making The
call for the and the removal that the Senator
from Maine has urged pressing tie adoption Of his resou
on Mr. Barton contended that the fact Of removal implied
cause of sort derogaory the character O the dis
missed funconay that TO dismiss public officer and re-
fuse to communicate the TO nfct injury and
do gross injustice to private character injury 70
his family and his Of livelihood. II the party removed
innocent of any misconduct, justice required
that his innocence should appears guilty Of any mdemean-
or due alike to himself and the public that the extent
of his guilt should he known II will be remembered ba.
removals from Office during the administration Of General
Jackson justified under the pretex OF REFORM which
necessarily increased the presumption Of delinquency d some
kind the part of the dismissed officer But Mr. Barons
resolution laid the table by strict party vote. Now
if any thing be regarded settled by the Democrae
party it to that this question OF the right OF the
Senate call for the of removals from office must be
regarded, when, far recollec, every such call has
rejected by that party when in power in the last twenty
years.
Mr.. Dawson. On every occasion since 1859 they have
y resisted these inquiries.
d Mr. BRADBURr. The Senator is mistaken.
Mr. BELL. am not prepared to 30 so far back as that
/ but think not mistaken TO the course ot the Do
j, cac party upon this subject during the last twenty years
did intend when TO occupy the time OF tae sena
at all this occasion further than that upon son
future occasion would ask the attention OF the Senate uP'
general principles involved in the resolutions and
intention, il Senator anticipates me, TO offer Tor to-
consideration of the Senate proposition to restrict the dis
ceonary power claimed by the Executive over all the ci
officers of the country, and to regulate removals rom oe
by law, and am glad find that the Senator from Mane
is tn
point.
! Mr.. BRIGHT. II was not my intention to have said q
word this subject but the remarks of the honorable Senator
from Tennessee have struck with so much surPnse and
differ widely from what regard as the facts IN the case
that feel compelled ae asit isl to ask the indulgence o.
= the for few Moments while attempt short reply
70 to one or two of his positions.
The Senator must have doubtless proceeded length
with bis remarks before entered the chamber, and am no
quite that understand the tenor Of those have heard
msqnote him. however, hope he will please to correct me
understood the honorable Senator say that the pesen
Executive had not since his induction into Office violated
pledge pledges given the country before his election,
reference to removals from Office.
Mr. BELL. said so, according any thing that had
personal knowledge of in my section of the c)uny;
believe unless he has been mislcd he has done nowhere
g Mr.. BRIGHT. / at loss whether 10 give the re-
sponse Of the honorable Senator general special nepc
,ation presume he by his secon, the State
of Tennessee. If so, have right, and do not after hi
statemen contradict him; but the honorable Senator would
his declaration general broad enough to embrace The
State have the honor to represent, then take issue with
him. Sir, here declare publicly, upon my responsibility a
Senator, that the ndscrmnate removals. made at the time
and under the circumstances attending them, amount in my
judgment to most flag and daring violation OF the many
repeated pledges given by the present Executive to the
public without which pledges in my opinion, he could not
have been elected What spectacle is here presentedone
that American, will not characterize as il deserves
respect for the nation, and respect for that high office filed by
the incumbent, es,rans foil expression OF my sentiments
That pledges gven bold to deny now LEI
how they kept in my State, Indiana. There
twenty Federal officers that State subject 10 the
approval Of this body Of these, alone remains m'nu
mens Of Executive forbearance-an Executive that
mended itself the pe for their suags the ground
that be 9" ,athed prescription" Besides hese there
mation) other of the manner in which pledges
q made before election afterwards redeemed
a Mr. BELL. Do you mean this generally
Mr. BRIGHT. speaking Of the conduct Of
the Executive applicable to my own State.
SEvERAL SENATORS. II is alike applicable to
MIR. BRIGaT Il understood the honorable Senator from
Tennessee to sy that the files of the several Departments
would show that for all Of removals there had been
II it becomes matter of serious interest TO those
who appreciate the value of unsul reputation and who
prize fair fame far above office its enounents, many
do and trust every does 10 know what the
are that have been alleged against hem and upon which the
Executive grounded action. II belongs TO every
have the offences with which be stands charg read out that
dsnefesd public may decide for itself the guilt nno-
cence of eo-citz IN, ard not that corps of interested
officials should pronounce chamber In the
absence Of the charges upon which Executive action was
founded the Executive itself stands forth tie public
er and the removed the criminals stnot then due TO this