Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-31
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
Assistant Secretary Of the Treasury.
SPEECH OF HON. I. II. BAYLY,
FIRST SESSION.

1000.
The House, as in Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union, having under con-
sideration the reference of the Presidents
message to the appropriate committees,
Mr.. BA4LG rose and said:
| am as reluctant as any other member Of
this House to obtrude myself unnecessarily
upon its attention, but believe that the law of
Parliament is precisely as the Chair has de-
cided it; and that is, that the Chair ought not
to have let me hold the floor, if another mem
Der was competing for it who had not spoken
upon the subject under consideration but as
there was nobody else competing for it in this
case, | had right to the floor to move an
amendment. ! think the Chair has decided
rightly. But finding SO much difficulty made
by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.. Hous-
TON, had determined to say nothing if there
was an indisposition on the part Of the com
mittee to hear me. But the committee have
shown no such indispostion, and l thank the
committee for its courtesy in allowing me to
submit few remarks in reply to the gentle
man from Alabama, Mr.. PHILIPS.
!. beg to say to the committee in the begin
ming, that there is nothing in the world that
gives me more pleasure than to argue q ques-
ton with gentleman who presents his views
III the manner the gentleman from Alabama
has done. There was fairness in his state
ment OF the arguments of his opponents, that
exhibited confidence in the correctness of his
viewsan his positions which made it unneces-
sary for him to shrink from fair argument,
and attempt to get advantage in it by misstat-
ing the points at issue. He and understand
each other perfectly. There is no quibbling
about what one says, or the other said. We
have both looked at the question, and we both
know precisely what it is. He stated the case
correctly, when he said that | maintain the
question of inferiority in this case, in my view
depended upon the character of the duties to
be performed-in his view, upon the fact OF
there being superior in official position
That is the issue distinctly presented. He
maintains that if the officer has a superior
then he is an "inferior." l maintain that, in
view of this clause of the Constitution, the
question Of inferiority depends upon the char
acter of the duties to be performed | repeat,
that is the issue; and to it desire to address
myself
And first wish to refer to the presidents
which the gentleman has quoted, and which ]
should have quoted myself yesterday, if had
not, under this miserable, straightforward hour
rule, felt that was cramped, and had not
room enough to breathe freely He has re-
ferred to the laws establishing the various de-
partments Of the government; and he saws
that in all those laws the chief clerk is denom-
mated an inferior officer" and his appoint
ment conferred upon the principal officer
That is so; but it proves nothing against me
in the issue between the gentleman and my
self, unless he can show that the duties of the
clerk thus referred to are of as high grade as
those of the Assistant Secretary of the Trea-
sury. What are the duties which the law de-
fines as the duties of that principal clerk Not
a word giving him authority of any sort. He
Is to be employed as the secretary ''shall deem
proper" and in the event of the removal Of
the secretary, or vacancy from any other
cause, he is to take care of the records With
that single exception, his duty is to do the
bidding of the secretary Truly, such an office
was properly designated an inferior office.
1t is true that in case Of the death, resignation
or removal of the secretary, he is to take care
OF the records, but he is given no authority
over them. He is merely keeper of them. He
is made, as it were, Waterman. He is to see
that the records, as left by the removed secre-
tary, are in the condition in which he left them
when his successor comes in. Hecannot touch
a thing, and, l think, there is great propriety
in providing that this principal clerk, who, BY
law, has no authority of any sort, this appontee
>-''S ''iSAA - sAS pSSASeeiy3 oiioii VIC mduG tue
custodian, in case of a vacancy, of the records.
think this authority against the gentleman
for | cannot reconcile, with any proper use Of
language, the indiscriminate application of the
term inferior officer" to such an officer as
this, and to such one as the Assistant Secre.
tary Of the Treasury. And beg leave to say,
that in my opinion, Congress has been guilty OF
no such misuse of terms; for, in no instance
that can find, have they applied the applca.
ton inferior officer" to officers of the grade
of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
Their of it in the case of such an officer as
have been speaking of and The omission to use
it in the case of officers of the grade of Assis-
tant Secretary of the Treasury, Shows that they
thought it applicable in the one case, but not
In the other.
The gentleman, however in his very able
and lucid argument, referred to the fact than an
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury was pro-
vided for in the law of 1889. 1t is true the
officer was called the Assistant Secretary Of
the Treasury but the law defined his duties.
We will not stick upon the mere designation of
of an officer; for all along ny argument has
been that it was the character of the duties
which defined the grade of tie officer. If that
be So it is immaterial by What name he is
called. What had that Assistant Secretary to
W Lie was, 80 ltT iiS uutlei were concerned,
just in the position Of prin,iple clerk in the
other Departments and, like them, he had no
specific duty assigned him, except in case Of
vacancy, and then he took care of the re-
cords. He had no discretion of any sort, and
was, in fact nothing, as far d his duty to take
care of the records, is concerted, but a watch
man. And, as inferior as his duties were at the
next Congress the office was abolished, and a
Commissioner of the Revenue substituted, and
the law provided for his appointment by the
President and Senate.
The gentleman refers to tie clause of the
Constitution which empowers congress to "con-
stitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court"
And he argues that that CLAUSE fixes the mean
ing OF the word inferior, and shows that there
are but two classes-the prinGpal officer and
interiors Mr.. Chairman, Think the authority
is against the gentleman. In that clause the
standard of comparison is fxdl-" inferior TO
tie supreme court" But in the clause under
consideration the standard is not, in terms,
hxed. The language of the clause is not,
Congress may, by law, vest il the President
alone, and heads of departments, officers mte-
Ia hon. Il a. Ill q.