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


shall appoint such clerks therein respectively as they
shall find necessary and he salaries q said clerks re-
spectively shall not exceed tho sum OF $500"
The salaries OF the heads Of departments are provided
for the salaries OF all the Superior officers. below the
heads OF departments are provided for and then in one
sweepns clause. the heads Of the departments above
mentioned shall appoint such clerks therein respectively
az they shall md necessary with salaries not exceeding
i, 80 happens that in case which came before the
Supreme Court, that court expressed an opinion upon
this question OF who these inferior oicers that may
not undergo the scrutiny Of the Senate 10 the case sx
pere Duncan N. Hennen. the Supreme Court Of the
United States after referring TO the law establishing the
departments already referred TO- used the following lam
guage:
In all Of these departments power Is given the Sec
rs.ary to aapoiat all necessary clerks" &c, &c.
Tie Supreme Court says
These clerks fall under that class Of Inferior officers the
appointmsn of which the constitution authorizes Congress
to vest in the heads Of the departments"
Now who composed lhs court that declared that these
clerks, authorized ina batch wiihoulname o. designation
copyss, were the inferior officers contemplated by
the constitution Roger 3. fancy Joseph Story Smith
aen Bads sn ohn
Kinley. Who are they' Roger b fancy had been at
the head of the Treasury Department, and exhibited
there, as he has everywhere degree o. ability and scu
Tiny, and accuracy Of judgment, that undertake 10
say has been rarely surpassed by any who has lived
in This republic. He not only lawyer, but he had
been at The head OF the Treasury Department where this
question might have coae under his review. Joseph
Story had been distinguished member OF this House,
and was not only distinguished lawyer. but
statesman. Smith Thompson, who delivered the nnan-
mous opinion of the court, had been Secretary OF the
Navy; so in Taneys case, we have his opinion as
lawyer and his opinion as man who had been al the
head of one OF the departments OF the government. We
have he opinions. also, 10 lhe same point OF John Nc
Lean. who had also been head OF Department. James
M. Wayne, John Mckinley, Henry Baldwin, and Philip
OF Congress- and the latter Speaker OF this House And
as this is somewhat political question. their opinion
is to be noticed consequence oil their former con-
nexon with political life. than # they were mere law
know shall be told by those who will follow me-
for know my friend from Alabama Mr. PHlLlPsl to be
character are to follow me, know everything will be
said which be said- say shall be told, that this
very act. creating the Treasury Department. contains
provision authorizing the Secretary Of the Treasury to
appoint an assistant That s true but his duties were
very different and inferior TO those assigned now TO the
Assistant Secretary and yet short tune afterwards 10
May, 1892 the Congress OF the United States abolished
the Office OF Assistant Secretary OF the Treasury. and
substituted commissioner OF the revenue; and The law
subjected this officer thus substituted to the supervision
of the Senate in his appointment claim that this, the
subsequent action OF Congress IN reference TO this mat
ter annuls the first decision. and becomes pregnant
authority my side Of the question.
am 40 hoarse that can only speak ith the greatest
difficulty but must say word or TWO more. Mr.
Chairman. my friend from Pennsylvania Mr. WRIcHT]
referred to the fact that MI WALKER in his report to Con
gress recommending The establishment of the Interior De-
armeni suggested that the appointment OF the Assistant
Secretary Of the Treasury should be conferred on The
head of that department. and ha. The law was passed In
the very language OF his Recommendation. II is SO
But while have no disparagement to make OF MI
Walker, beg to say .ha. Supposng am wrong land
only eoneede J. for Inc PURPOSE Of argumsn n believing
meat OF such officer, with such duties as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury, could not be conferred upon
the Secretary Of the treasury Soae say 'HRposns
authority OF Mr. Walker, another part OF that law will
settle the question Of his inalliby That law not only
.~fs a.. al.
assistant Secretary OF the Treasury, without referring
the appointment the Senate for continuation, but il also
authorizes the assistant himself TO appoint clerk at
salary OF 81. 700 year This png Pelion upon Os
sa" in dIsregardng the sons.itutonfrst, authorizing
the Secretary alone TO appoint Assistant Secretary
which maintain he had no right to do, and then giving
that Assistant the power TO appoint clerk under him.
The constitution allows that. by law the appointment
OF inferior officers may be conferred upon the Presden
alone and the heads OF departments and courts OF law
But does il allow that inferior ocers themselves may
appoin, officers still inferior TO them Why. sir, IL Mr.
Walkers authority s 10 be invoked, say he must have
regarded this Assistant Secretary OF The Treasury as the
head Of deparment, because unless be s the head OF
department. The President OF the United States. court
OF law the Congress OF the United States had auhori
70 sonis npon hmm -: e 20 sasnosy
head. then his appointment must 90 70 the Senate
il an inferior, then he cannot appoint His own letter
shows ha, he did not look upon the Assistant Secretary
authorized by law, an inferior otcer lie coniempa-
ted superior officer He wished provision made for an
Oncer scarcely inferior 10 the oeCretaIy nimsel-one
with high salary great talent, and. Of course. high du
Ties His language is;
"Havng transferred the lsboriou, duties enumerated
from the Secretary OF tho Treasury, Congress should
thorze him appoint Assistant retay. who should
be OF talent and experiences, with salary
less % O00 year, who should examine all letters
Secretary and perform such Other dncs recurring the
the Secretary might conveniently be de-
volved upon him by the department To maintain the
unity and efficiency of the syscm he should he appointed
by the Secretary. and subject to his dic'aton"
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WKsrwoRrH] un-
der,ook TO cay that this movement was lck at the
President Of The United Slaes and he administration
So such OF believed the constitution required
cuence OF the Senate in appointing officers of this sort
are to be regarded frends oil the administration
would beg Just here TO 10 the gentleman from Illinois.
that he evidently has made mistake in this matter and
one OF a character not usual with him. am the cham
came here 10 vnd,cate his right to nominate import
officer The Assistant Secretary OF the Treas
ury. -
beg leave TO tell the gentleman from Illinois Mr.
WENrwoRTH]-wh has good deal Of keen sagacIiy in
finding the Presidents sidethat in this particular
as really sustaining the constitutional rights OF the
President, OF making upon the administration. Sir,
am upon the Preudenfs aide this question. Well,
sir, the gentleman from Ilinots-bv what authority do
not precisely Observation-Disclosures arraxn gentle
men who contend for the rights OF the President, and
me, suppose, a. the chief OF oacnden 40 happened
(innoeenily on my paIt) that was the one who made
ihie point. senator, personal friend OF mine, came
down here and told me there was bull in the Senate
providing for the mode OF paying the SENATOR'S and begged
me 10 look out for it, and give 1t helping band when it
came before the House. promised 10 do it. am al
ways glad to accommodate friend in matter Of that
sort.
- AZ. l.oL -, IL. a. U>cn,. LII. Thu.