Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1853-12-27

I Mr. HUUsToN has suggested. that other officers
have been appointed under the same circumstances,
who have not been submitted to the Senate, let
him propose an amendment that shall embrace them
and subject them 10 the same ordeal, anu WIN
vote tOrlL
Mr.. HousTox, Gnterposing) The gentleman has
misunderstood me altogether. What l sald was
that until the last Congress, Assistant Post masters
General three in number, were appointed by the
Postmaster General himself AT the last Congress.
however, we passed law substantially IN the same
phraseoogy which we propose 10 give & Is BILL re-
auiriug that in future the appointment of these
officers must 60 to the Senate The result has been
that one of them has been removed, and the ap-
Dointee confirmed by the Senate. Twoof the As
sistant Postmasters, appointed before the passage
of this law, however, now hold their Offices, and
have never been confirmed by the Senate, their ap-
pointment having never gone before that body.
Mr. STANTON. / wish to call the attention of the
House TO another point The constitution of the
United States as understand it requires that Off
GERS of this description slall be appointed by the
President Of the United States by and with the ad-
vice and consent Of the Senate.
Mr. HEM, Gnterrupting) | desire to inquire OF
the gentleman from Tennessee as to the limitation
of the term Of Office Of the Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury, or of the Assistant Postnasters Gen
era whether there is any limitation or end TO their
terms Of Office?
MT ETANTON, IntIe ID no pOsltifc ca
cept in the will of the appointing power. But,
sir. there is a constitutional requirement. and the
question is, whether it can be evaded by suffering
a man to remain in Office contrary to that require
ment There is no other instance now under the
government of the United States--no instance IN
der any existing LAWN which az officer of this
grade is appointed without confirmation by the
Senate Of the United States. thought not to be so
in this case and man of high feeling and of hon
II, cforoa
or any attempt to screen himself from the examina-
ton of the Senate.
Mr. WHEELKR I would like to ask the gentle
man from Tennessee, if the amendment proposed
by the gentlemae from Alabama should be adopted,
whether it woul9 not be reflection upon the Pres
ident in denying him the right to appoint in sach
case?
Mr.. STANTON / think it Is reflection upon the
officer who hojs the Office in question to desire to
screen himself II any such manner.
Mr. HIBBARD. l have but one word to say upon
this subject now; and thatis that enough has trans
pired in this debate if it not before sufficient
" evident to convince the House that now IS not
the time to proceed to final action upon this bill.
Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee. think that this is the
very time when we should act upon it.
Mr. HmDARD spoke in favor of postponing final
action on the bill He moved its reference to the
committee of Ways and Means and demanded the
previous question, which was not sustained.
Mr.. PHILIps would not, Mr.. Speaker, offer
anv remarks upon the subject before the House,
which has already received so much debate, if it
were not that differ from the able aud learned gen.
tleInen who have preceded me with regard to the
constitutonality of this measure. | profess to be a
strict constructionst probably owe my seat here
to my attachment to that political creed. But, at
the same time we must be careful that we do not
forero or pretermt the clear constitutional powers
which are vested by the constitution in the federal
government.
The gentleman from Virginia, mr.. BArLET,l and
the gentleman on my left from Tennessee, Mr..
SrAxToN have both assumed that it was position
which scarcely could be controvered that the con-
stituon requires the appointment by the President
with the advice and consent Of the Senate, of the
officer in question: and they placed their Judgment
upon the ground that the appointment of no other
than inferior officers" could by the provisions Of
! that instrument be vested in other hands. Now,
to what does that term ''inferor" relate? is the
! question before the House Why sir, 1t relates
and can have no distinct definition hut in that rea-
! tion-to the first to- wit-the Secretary himself
Once determine that the First Assistant Secretary
is not an inferior officer, and l ask, where is the
! significance of the term 'inferior' TO rest? Who
| shall say that Second Assistant Secretary is an
inferior officer? IT we depart from the plain con-
| sructon, which, to my mind is so evident, that IN
feriority has reference only to the frs-to wit the
/ heads of deparments-we are thrown upon sea
! of construction by which constitutional rule OF
one character may be established to day, and a con-
! sttutional rule OF another character TO morrow.
Look to the cases specified in the constitution
where the concurrent action of the Senate is requr-
ed They are ambassadors. other public ministers
and consuls. Judges Of the Supreme Court'-offices
the superiority of which Is at once recognized
But the Congress may by law vest the appoint
ment Of such inferior officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone in the courts Of law in the
heads Of departments
The incumbent holds under law vesting his ap-
pointment in the Secretary Of the Treasury, the
head Of his department He is subordinate or 'infe-
rior" TO the Secretary, and is already within the
constitutional limitation however important his
duties may be-
Mr. BAYLEY, of Virginia. l would ask the gem
eman whether the collectors at various points are
not subordinate to the heads of departments, and
whether his construction would not bring them
under the head of inferior officers? And let Inc
also ask him whether, from the foundation of the
government the President has not been required to
make appointments of those officers and if they
have not been confirmed by the Senate?
Mr.. PHILIPS. will say, in reply to the gentle
from Virginia, that collector is the FIRST in
his Office. He has no superintendent there. He
has the sole control OF IT, ana therefore comes With
in the definition assigned to The constitution.
So much sir for the conshtutionalty of this
measure. Now let me sa, a few words with refer
ence to the expediency Of the measure which is
Def re the House. 1t is proposed to take the APP
pontment of the First Assistant Secretary 'of the
Treasury from the Secretary and to give it to the
President; and this is to be done upon grounds
which denounce the past action Of the government
and the past action of these officers as Illegal and
unconstitutional |, for one, am not prepared light
ly to admit premises which lead to such a concu-
sion.
Mr. WENTWORTH, of Illinois, spoke against refer
ring the bill to the committee of Ways and Means
He was opposed to the bill, because he believed it
to be aimed at the Assistant Secretary Of the Treas
ury.
Mr. Disney next followed in favor of the bill, az
ter which Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee, obtained the
floor.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. l intend to detain the
House but minute two in relation to the amend
ment. | suggest that we make this appointment
subject to the decision OF the Senate in all cases
hereafter simply for the reason that the existing of
fcer was appointed under the law as it stood upon
the statute-book at the time of his appointment
His appointment was perfect and complete; and !
do not think that Justice requires or even permits
us to subject that officer, whose appointment was