Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-31

/ ehShh out VI tuaJ Category. lhc BtuticLHuH y
construction would put it in the power of Con-
gress to confer the appointment OF every officer
in the United States upon the President alone,
except ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court.
] And yet, as / showed the other day, when it
was proposed in the convention which framed
the Constitution, to require the concurrence of
the Senate only in these cases, it was voted
down. Can anything be more conclusive?
The gentleman's construction would give the
President such an amount of patronage in
prospect as to enable him, with spoils-seeking
Congress, to procure the passage of law con-
terring the appointment of every officer in the
United States-with the exception of those
mentioned, who have no patronage-upon him
alone; and the law having passed, he would
have in possession such an amount of patron
age as would prevent its repeal in any other
way than by rerolution, either by arms, or by
such one as that of 1905 and in the latter
case, the republicans would have more than
monarchs patronage to contend against; and
II not successful, with these odds against them,
we would have an elective monarchy imposed
upon us, which, of all monarchies, is the worst
as George Mason thought.
/ But, without looking to these extreme re-
suits, does the Constitution contemplate that
Congress may, by law, confer the appointment
of all of the auditors, comptrollers, and all of
the accounting officers, on the President alone,
Or the heads Of departments, so as to confer on
them the whole control of the appointment Of
those officers? The Constitution contemplates
a system of checks and balances, in the settle
ment of accounts, of revisal, and review, by
officers not dependent upon, but independent
of each other; so much SO that comptroller
may check even secretary, or the President
himself. The whole theory of our government,
III all its departments, is one of checks and
balances-it IS, of concurrent action by indie
pendent officers in the transaction of the bust
ness OF the departments, and concurrent ma
jorities in the enactment of laws.
think / have shown, Mr.. Chairman, that il
is the character of the duties to be performed
by the officer which is the test of his nferiority
and not his official position. If am right in
this, let us see whether the Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury is an inferior officer or not,
whose appointment can be conferred by law on
the head of q department alone. Let us see
what are his duties. In the language of the
law constituting that officer
| "An officer shall be appointed in the Treasury
Department TO be called the Assistant Secretary
otthe Treasury whose salary shall be $4,000 per
annum, payable in the same manner the Secre-
tary OF the Treasury. who shall examine all letters,
contracts, and warrants prepared for the signature
ofthe Secretary off the Treasury and who shall per-
form all such other duties in the office the Secre-
tary, now performed by some Of his clerks, as may
be devolved upon him by the Secretary Of the
| Treasury; and shall also appoint clerk at a
salary OF 81, 100 perannun, who shall perform such
| duties, &c." ,.
What, an inferior officer appoint clerk
What use has he for one? The Constitution
OF the United States says, that it 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
officers. Yet this law gives to this inferior
officer, as my learned friend contends he is, the
right appointment of an officer still inferior to
| him. Why, gentlemen, is it necessary in an
American Congress to argue, that that officer
cannot be an inferior officer in view of the Con-
stituton, who has the right to appoint others
under him?
Let us look at it little further than this.
What is he to do? l undertake to say, if there
exists in this government that vigilance which
is the price Of liberty, that vigilance which is
alone the proper security against corruption,
that the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
more than any other officer in the Treasury
Department, is the one who should not be the
mere creation of the Secretary of the Treasury,
and responsible to him alone.
He is to examine all contracts, letters, and
warrants prepared for the signature of the Sec
rotary of the Treasury, and to perform any
other duty whatever performed by any clerk in
the department. Let us look at this. Why is
he TO examine all letters, contracts, and war
rants prepared for the signature Of the "sec-
etary?'' "Cui Jono2" For what purpose is
he to examine all contracts, letters, and war
rants? Is it to relieve the secretary from the
examination, and is he to sign them upon
faith? or is the assistant to examine them as a
guard upon the secretary? 1t must be one or
the other.
There has scarcely been a republic which
has preceded us, in which corruption in gov
eminent contracts, and illegal allowances, has
not produced decentralization in the nation
that has paved the way to ruin. Considering this,
ought that ofcer-did the Constitution contem-
plate that that ofcer-who is either virtually
to make all the contracts, write all the letters,
ana issue all the warrants which the Secretary
Is required to sign, or in the other alterna-
tive, to supervise everything which the Secre
tary does in those respects-to be the mere
appolntee of the Secretary, and responsible to
him alone? To be appointed without the con-
currence of the Senate, and to be beyond the
direct control even of the President?
MI. PERKINS, of Louisiana, (interrupting,) |
would ask if the gentleman from Virginia did
not himself report the resolution as it exists,
and against which he is now arguing?
Mr.. BAYLY. My friend from Louisiana
mr.. PERKINS does not know me as well as he
will before the end of this Congress, else he
would not have asked me this question. He
would have known beforehand that / am not
the man to involve myself in any such predic-
ament as his question contemplates. ] not
only did not report the bill, but was tooth and
nail against it.
Mr.. PERKINS. / am very happy to hear
the exclamation of the gentleman sonobt i |
from one of his colleagues, rs / wished to be |
relieved from the impression that the gentle
man was arguing now against what he formerly |
advocated. am perfectly satisfied with the
genteman's explanation.
Mr.. BA1LY. | did not report the bill, but
was opposed to it. | know the whole history Of |
the bill creating the Department of the Interiors
and it is little piece of history that will state
to the House. The Department of the Interior
would not have been created, in my opinion, if
it had not been that in the organization of Gen. |
II = n