The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-04


present administration may consider sound and insist
that il has not been regarded in the removals made by
General Taylor The State OF Tennessee has been refer
truth Of this allegation should like 10 know who /
was that gave the senator the information he relies
upon in regard 10 removals in that State
| Mr. BRADBURY II was member OF Congress from
Mr.. BELL No matter; I am not disposed to question
the general correctness OF the statement Most OF The
removals and others
rau0ns OF the official terms but know that some five
OF six Offices held BY democrats. and ranging in value
should estimate, from some four hundred 10 eight hun
dred thousand dollars are still in the hands Of demo
cratic ncumbents. But will the senator from Maine
suit again with the gentleman from Tennessee TO whom
value @ in Tsnnessee M held BY i wbig when Genera
Taylor came into power am Obliged to say that
recoect none, not one. worth much as two hun
from Pennsylvania, il he has any knowledge that .
single whg was in possession OF any Office OF value
when this sdmipisiration entered upon It's dutiesi
Mr.. DAWSON, , tin Ris seat, Take the State oi
Maine! }l
Mr.. BELL. will ask my friend from Maine whether
ice q any value when General Taylor came si into he
Mr.. BRADBURY There were wings IN Office in the
Mr.. BELL. ! mean Offices Of any value.
Mr, BRADBURY. Nota large number, sir, Laugh.
MIR. BELL. Let the same inquiry be made in refer
to every Stale Of the Union and the response
would follow. And Icannot refrain from saying, under all
the facts admitted or disclosed and established connected
with this subject that the speech OF the honorable SENATOR
and ALI arguments by which he has sought sustain his
ATTACK upon the course Of the President most extrao
dinary do not mean to say that the manner or the mat
tier of the senator is improper for debate or un-
parliamentary. mean TO say. that It is extraordinary
and surprising that member Of the democratic party,
holding to the principles Of that party on the subject Of
removals from Office, should persist in these attacks.
There is other question connected with the subject
before the Senate that wish to say few words upon
How can the senator from Maine or any Of his political
friends, with any consistency or popety support reso
luton calling for the reasons or caoes upon which re-
movals from office have been made by the President.
when well known that the democratic party has for
twenty years past resisted all such calls when proposed
by their opponents The senator, In bis first speech upon
this subject, took the ground that the Jackson party in
voted down series Of resolutions offered by Mr. Holmes
in the Senate, making similar sal becanse OF the
resolutions embraced matter foreign to the object OF the
fore the senator concluded that the then Jackson,
democratic, party not committed against such calls
But the senator cannot shelter himself and bis friends
der the assumption of the facts stated in relation to the
resolutions of Mr. Holmes Al the same session OF Con-
gress, Mr. Barton, then senator from Missouri, offered
single resolution calling upon the President 70 commu-
ing the recorder Of land titles in that State forget his
name. The senator from Wisconsin Mr.. DoDGEl or
the senator from Missouri Mr. BEsToxl may recollect
his name. | believe ii was Carson. Mr. BENTON as
senied The Argument upon which the call was resisted
by the jackson members IN the general debate which
took place upon that and Mr.: Holiness resolutions
was that the power o removal! was absolute and dis
crctionary in the President BY the constitution that he
alone was responsible that the Senate had no right to
demand his ior doing an act exclusively within
in the matter Of removals from and appointments to Office
than reject consm the appointments when the Presi
dent But Nat Barton in me &c; case o. Carson
making the call for the and OF the removal
that the senator from Maine has urged in pressing the
adoption of his resolution Mr.. Barton contended that
the fact Of removal implied cause Of some sort deroga
tory the character Of the dismissed functonary that TO
dismiss public officer and refuse TO communicate the
an 10
means Of livelihood. II the party removed was innocent
OF any misconduct justice required that his
ss. I "a sSs s Of Duss s
his guilt should be known. II will be remembered that
removals from Office during the administration Of Gene
raj Jackson Were justified under h the psasIl o. siom do
quency Of kind the part of the dismissed officer
But Mr.. Barton's resolution was laid the table by
settled BY the democratic party seems that this
question of the right Of the Senate 10 call for the causes
OF removals from Office must be regarded, when, as
far as recolec every such call has been rejected BY
that party when in power in the last twenty years.
\ Mr. DAWSON. On every occasion, since 1859, they
have resisted these inquiries.
/ Mr. BELL am not prepared to 90 90 far back az
that but think am not mistaken 10 the course oi
the democratic party upon this subject during the as'
i twenty years.
did not intend when rose to occupy the time OF the
Senate al all this occasion, further than TO say that
| upon some future occasion would ask the attention oi
the Senate upon the general principles involved IN the
resolutions and is my intention, II senator antici
pates me, offer for the consideration OF the Senate
proposition restrict thediscrctonary power claimed BY
the Executive over all the civil officers Of the country
and to regulate removals from ONCE By law; and am
glad find that the senator from Maine, understood
him, is ready to cooperate with me on that point
A Mr. BRIGHT. Il was not my intention TO have sad
word this subject but the remarks OF the honorable
senator from Tennessee have struck me with 20 much
SURPRISE and differ widely from what regard ~ the
facts in the case that feel compelled Gate a. s) z
ask the indulgence Of the Senate for few moments
while attempt short reply 10 or two OF his positions
length with his remarks before entered the chamber
and am not quite sure that | understand the tenor
those have heard II misquote him, however, hop
he will please 10 correct me- understood the honorable
senator TO say that the present Executive had not sine
his induction into Office, violated any pledge or pledge
given TO the country before his election In reference
removals from Office
personal knowledge OF in my own section Of the coun
try and believe, unless he has been nisled, he has don
II nowhere.
} Mr. BRIGHT. l am at loss whether 70 give the re
sponse OF the honorable senator general Or special IN
tepretation presume he means by "his own secuon
the State OF Tennessee II 60, have no right and a
not after his statement, contradict him bat tne non
orable senator would have his declaration general
broad enough 10 embrace the State have me nono,
publicly upon my responsibility as senator thar me 10
discriminate removals, made at the time and under ne er
cumsauces attending them, amount, 10 my Judgment 70
most fragrant and daring violation OF the many and repeat