The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-12-30

OF government all lis departments one OF checks
and balances Is OF concurrent action by independent
officers IN the transaction OF the business Of the depzgl
menIs, and concurrent majories in the enactment OF
laws
think | have shown. Nh Chairman; thu. /, 10 the
character Of the duties 10 be performed by The ocet
which Is the test Of h.s 'nisroriy, and not his ocal
pssnon II am right in this. let whether the
Assistant Secretary OF the Treasury IL an inferior ocer
or not whose appointment can be conferred by law on
the head OF adepartmen alone List ns see what are his
duties Ia the language Of the law constituting that
ot1cer-
b. caled the Asslan Secretary OF Tho Teasny
whose salary shall be $4,000 per annam payable ~ ihs
same the Secretary OF the Treasury who shall
examine all letters, contrac and warrants prepared for
hs ,snaa,s 2, The Secretary o. me IasssuIy ana VINO
performed by OF his clerks, may be de
volyed upon b.m by The $50 elary o. hs c6easay and
who shall peiorrn such du'ies," rs. 4s.
What! an inferior officer appoin, cIerkl What use
has he for one The ccnstsulon ot the United States
says ha. il is alone the President OF the United States
the heads OF departments and courts OF law, who may,
by law. be vested with The appointment of inferior of
Yet this law gives TO this inferior officer, my
learned friend contends he s the right OF appointment OF
necessary in the American Congress- 10 argue tha, that
officer cannot be inferior officer, view 0f the cons
tuon, who has the right 10 sppon, Others under hun
Let us look al II little further Than this What IL he
to dol undertake to say it there exists in this govern
men thar vigilance which is the price of lberiy--lhal
vigilance which alone The proper security against
Tuptionhat the Assistant Secretary Ot the Treasury,
more than any other officer IN the Treasury Depart.
nen the who should not be the creation Of
the Secretary OF The Treasury, and responsible 10 him
alone. #
He examine all contracts letters and warrants pre-
pared for Signature OF The Secretary OF the Treasury,
and 10 perform any other duly whatever performed by
any clerk The department Lei leok at this Why is
he 10 examine all letters contracts, and warrants prenaed
tor the signature OF the Secretary" J" " Cui bono2" For
What purpose is be to all contracts, letters, and
warfaas Is il 10 relieve the Secretary from the exam-
DalIon and is he 10 sign them upon faith or is the
Assistant 10 examine Them as guard upon the Secre-
larry! II must be one or the other.
There has scarcely been republic which has pre-
ceded which corruption government contracts.
and illegal allowances have mol produced demoraza-
ton in The nation that has paved the way 10 ruin
Considering this, ought that oticrr-dd the constitution
contemplate that that ofcer-who is either virtually 10
make all the contracts, write all the letters
all the warrants which the Secretary is required to sign
or, 10 Inc o,hsr alternative 70 supervise everything
which The Secretary does in these rrspectsto be The
mere apponee OF the Secretary, aad responsible to hun
alone !io appointed without The concurrence OF the
SENATE and 10 be beyond the direct control even OF the
Mr. PERKINS. ol Louisiana. (interrup,ng) would
ask If the gentleman iron Virginia did not himself re-
port the resolution as texlss and against which ne is
Mr. BAYLY. My friend from Louisiana Mr. PEA
kin. does noi anos we'd he will before the end
OF his Congress, eIse be would not have asked this
question he Woaid have known beforehand that l am
not Tie naa 10 involve myself IN any such pfedcameni
his question coniempates. not only did not report
the bill, hni was Tooth and nail against H.
Mf. PERKINS. AN very hpppy 10 hear the expla-
nauon Of Inc gentleman sought II from one oi hs
colleagues, as wished 10 be relieved fron the impress
sion mat the gentleman WAS arguing now against what
ne iorneriy advoca'ed am perfectly sa.ishsd with the
Mr. BAYLY did not report the bill. but was op-
posed TO II know the whole history OF the bill Gre
aug the Department OF the Interior and il ia little
piece OF history that will state 10 the House. The De
,ariment OF tue lnien1r would have been created
opinion. II bai not been nai IN the organization OF
General Iayofs cabinet there not enough Tor
sufhc eni number ot gentlemen who wanted places ,
ard was appealed TO here not to oppose actively that
ias, MS II vas known that Twas determined to do. j
reminded IN al II recommended by democratic
Secretary, Mr. Wakpr.) and was told bs, II the law
did pass there would be place Tor dIstng
shig. ios whom they desired 10 make place, aud 10
whom II was known ] was much attached | was op-
posed 10 IL, and OF course yielded 10 no such appeals
he Law passed on the last night ol Mr. Polk's ad
anistIauon; ana do mol believe IT would have passed
s all, had mol II have been Tor such appeals 10 members
AS lie one have referred TO. did not report the b,
pat dia report at the last Congress provision creating
the Assistant Secretary OF State or rather, II came
der my review chanaD OF tbe Committee on Foreign
Affairs Congress returned, that instance, TO what
thongnt be constitution requifed OF u.s. aod simply SAID
that there should De Officer called the Assistant Sec.
reary OF State, aud II liked his salary but said nothing
about The mode Of appointment We lett II 10 the con-
-uon Of course, be has been appointed BY The Pres-
dent and The Svnale.
L
first pat OF the very able argunest OF my friend from
Aisba Da, MIR. Plural There is wide difference OF
opinion between the gentleman and myself upon grave
question OF Constitutional law; yet listened with very
great pleasure hs aoe Argument for II the argu
neD OF jurs; and an sure that ibis House was sal.
Ished. wien he came 10 the conclusion OF his remarks
tnat he who. by The power OF his intellect
will adofn the county which he Is destined ably 10
serve and for tba reason with greater PAIN heard him
say thai ohcer OF this has sort OF ate
a vested right m The Office he may happen to hold.
MR. PHILIPS II the gentleman will allow me, |
think be has mIsapprebended the point desfed 10 make
Wba said was. that when oficer bad once been APP
pointed under law OF Congress, by the head Of de-
paflmen he holds that ohce agsins, The power OF Con-
gress him. and against The power oI the Presi
dent OF The United States to hun lie cannot be
removed except by officer who appointed him. That
is according to my reading OF the constitution.
Mr.. BAYLY. | did not misunderstood the gentleman.
The cicsrness and perspcuiy with which he states bis
propositions makes impossible tor him 10 be
derslood. He says that when Congress has authorized
the appointment OF oicer-an inferior oficer-as he
maintains this 70 be--and conferred the appointment
upon the Secretary that neither Congress the Pes
dent has the power to remove him, but that the power
vests soley in the officer who appointed him Now, sir
let us look that proposition for moment, The gentle
mans language is TOO plan to be msuDderstood lie
says that neiler Congress The President
hun agree with that the President cannot, because
The power removal belongs TO the power OF appoint
meat And ii he means that Congress cannot by law
turn A out OF orbce and put in. also agree with
him Bot II he means that when Congress has passed
a law creating an office. and providing the mode OF
filling H. tney have not the power to pass another law
sbolishinx The Office changing The mode oil appoint
ment and in either yscalng the Office, then differ
IRON hin.
Mr. PHILIPS. Oh, no on The contrary, said, in
express terms that Congress had the power abolish
tue ofce and iha, that the only way which they