The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-12-29

feror officers the appointment OF which the coas uor
authofzes Congress 10 vest IN the head OF The depart
ment" page go This last quotation - The one &c
much relied upon BY the gentleman from Virginia Fol
what purpose For the very extraordinary one oi show
ing that the clerks The only issi~ ofncers referred
10 in the constitution II any thing was wanting 10 sho"
The error of such an argument beyond the mere state
men of il, il is found in the first quotation, which he'
clares the clerk is OF the inferior ofhcer &C
Besides The gentleman has. and over again. through
out his argument admitted the existence OF other inferior
officers than clerks and is too late even 10 attempt the
limitation which he enormously ascrbes TO this decision
think may say with confidence, that the gen
temans authorities have entirely failed him, and that
the question, heretofore discussed m the House be-
tween Us, rests where II dad.
But now, SIR proceed one step further. Suppose the
law under which the Secretary has appointed Mr. Wash
Dgton be unconstitutional deny that we can, by any
action OF this Congress cons,ituionally require the Pres
dent TO send his nomination 10 the Senate. deny that
the President or Congress. both combined. reach
that appointment The appointment was made by tue
Secretary and s removal must come from ne source
Of pousr Congress, is true, may repeal the law. and
abolish the office. they may direct Judicial proceedings
Try the right of the incumbent. This very point was
the ably argued at the bar and decided by the
court in the OF pare Hennen already referred 10
am speaking now OF principles and legal
rules. / do not say what the President or Secretary
ought do, would do in certain contingencies, but
what they would be bound 10 do.
The joint resolution from the Senate. now the subject
OF this discussion, has been advocated here upon the
ground that the appointment OF Mr. Washington was nn.
CONSTITUTIONAL and that by its provisions the President
the Senate, tor its concurrent action. have already
said that should we pass this joint resolution, would
be, my humble judgment without any legal obligation
II has surprised very much, that while cannot hes
ate 10 believe, from the assertions ana arguments oil
those who PRESS the this oor that was the
specific design to reach The OF the present incum
bent that so gave and learned body AS the Senate
should have sent act whose terms fall so Tar short oil
It's intent The words OF the joint resolution in reference
this act" What effect. let me ask. Mr.. Chairman can
this have upon an appointment made months or years
agoa The appointment is In the past; the resolution
deals entirely with The future.
IL therefore, we were 10 pass the JOINT resolution u
would moi legally produce the result II draughted
for The dts of the day. The street conversation oil
members, the statements on this floor. might be used
should pass the act 10 produce influences and excite
feelings in certain quartes bull, repeat, that as these
things form pari OF the act ITSELF but it's construction
s to be found only in just Interpretation OF ts terms il
would not legally enioIce the condition Tor which II
adopted.
Ia conclusion, therefore. as | am firmly convinced
that the of ls49. well the act OF 17So. lis proo
type, is constitutional, and that il is expedlent well as
constitutional that The appointment should rest where II
s shall vote against the passage OF this resolution.
To crafty friends who may think it safer to offer an
amendment inserting the word thereafter" will vote
for it, though considering i unnecessary.
To the gentleman from Virginia Mr.. BAYLYl freely
accord the utmost sincerity when be declares, in his
very advocacy OF this measure that he is not in.
fuenced in his course by auy feeling OF hostility either
the President, the Secretary OF the Treasury or the
incumbent whose appointment has produced this discus.
sion. mere Is iIdnh
The gentleman which has inspired with entire con
fdencs in what be says But, sir, there seems to me
something extraordinary in ths transaction. The EVIL
dent haste which the resolution is drawn, the
zeal with which il is pressed. the strange argument,
upon which il is rested the unusual proposed &c
be resoed 10, all seem Indicate that there Is
thing more designed than is written out on The face o.
this title paper.
As sir, have the fullest confidence in this admins
traliona confidence when has grown with the proge
of events since It's inaugura,ion-as have the i'm
plic reliance 10 incorruptbe integrity OF the chic
of the Treasury Department, gfatled that the result
TO which have places me honestly in the position
where may freely in,erpose the shield Of my vote L
protect these high functonaries from the impuaon h
resolution may be designed to cast upon them.