The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1853-11-15
JUDGE BnoNsor's LAST LETTER.

OF our correspondence on thut eupJoce D"'
as you have attempted to assign reasons Tor
the proceeding, have something to say IN re-
ply. 1r,. ~ -
You deny the right of the Collector to act
without instructions from your Department, in
any case. This doctrine is entirely new; for
10 much the larger part Of the business OF the
Custom House tho Collector is guided by the
revenue laws, and has always acted without
instructions from the Secretary the Treasu-
ry. 1t is only in special cases, where the law
is Of doubtful construction, or the duties of the
Collector have not been fully prescribed by
law, aud where the Secretary has dispensing
power. that he has been authorized to issue In
structions TO Collectors. And none of these
cases have anything to do with the appoint
ment of officers of tho customs. On that head
tho rights and duties of both Secretary and
Collector have been prescribed by Congress,
and Mother can control tho other when acting
in his appropriate sphere.
If, as you appear TO suppose, the Collector
can do nothing without Instructions from your
department, tho business which is ow trans
acted in the Custom House in single hour,
could not be accomplished in month. You
have evidently set too high an estimate upon
the extent of your powers.
The reason which you have assigned for
this sweeping claim of authority is as extraor-
dinary as the claim itself. You words are:
"Where the department is not expressly en-
powered to give instructions to subordinates,
it has the authority TO do 20 as inherent in the
power TO remoAe refractory officer Now
as | read the Constitution, the Secretary oftho
Treasury has no power 10 remove Collector.
however refractory he may be. To power of
removal, as well as of appointment, ia vested
In the President You will do well, therefore,
to look for some better reason than the one
you have assigned for an unlimited authority
over Collectors in the selection of their agents.
You think il singular that gentleman of
my legal requirements and experience should
ia II into an error of assuming that The Collec-
tor appoints the various persons employed in
the Custom House-some with approval of the
Secretary, and some on the sole authority of
the Collector. Singular as this may appear
to you, it is the course which has uniformly
been pursued since the foundation of tho Gov
enment Weighers, Measurers Guagers and
Inspectors have been appointed by tho Cellec-
tor alone. 1t has not only been SO under all
former Secretaries of the Treasury, but during
your own time. All my Clerks, Porters, Cart
men, Laborers, &C., have been appointed with
on; you in any form; and you never entertain
ed doubt about the propriety of this course
until yon deemed it expedient 10 intorfcro in
the local politics of New York.
Sill you insist that the clerks and other a
gents of tho Collector "derive their appoint
ment and authority as public officers from the
Secretary of tho Treasury alone The rea-
son you assign for this new and extravagant
claim will show that it is wholly without any le-
gal foundation. You place it upon the Constitu
tion of the United States. which provides that
Congress may by law,vest tho appointment Of
such inferior officers as they may think prop
erin the heads of departments" You then
add, that, "Congress has not attempted nor if
it had, could il have effected any modification
of this provision of the Constitution" And
hence you conclude that the appointment is in
the Secretary. Ii is readily granted that Con-
gress has not, and cannot modify the Constitu
ton. But still your argument amounts to no
more than this-bccause Congress may by ldtc,
vest the appointment Of certain officers in tho
Secretary of the Treasury, and Congress has
not modified this Constitutional provision,
therefore the Sec cary has the power of ap
p1ir tment. In other words-because Con-
gress may, it it pleases, confer power on the
Secretary, and Congress has done nothing on
the subject, therefore tho Secretary has the
power. Such is the law and the logic of your
letter.
have thus far assumed that you are right
in supposng that tho clerks porters. laborers,
&C., in tho Custom House, arc public officers
within the meaning of the Constitution in re-
ation to appointment. But, 10 truth they are
mere agents of tho Collector, to aid in tho dis
charge of tho duties which the law has inn
posed upon him. They are tho hands by
v hich he works, and are no more officers in !
he sense of the Constitution than are soldiers
ind sailors in the army and navy. They have
ever been treated, or even mentioned by Con-
yress as officers, appointed BY the Collector or
my ono else; but only as persons employed |
oy the Collector. hazard nothing in saying
hat the claim which you now set up has not |
shadow of foundation, either in the law of the |
and, or in any former practice OF the Govern
nent
You speak of "unwarran,able assumption"
md "manifest spirit of insubordination" on |
ny part as a ground for the removal. But |
Tou have boon wholly unable to show that
assumed anything beyond my just rights, or
hat was unwilling to act in obedience to your
Instruction, In all cases where the law had Civ
IN you authority to direct. You must allow
ne TO add, that subordination in Office does
rot necessarily prove inferioriiy; and, between
,entlemen, tho relation of superior and subor-
Innate confers no right on the one to use i'm
,erious language, and imposes no duty on the
ther TO surrender his legal rights
You complain that the remarks in my for
ner letter impugn your motives l did no moro
han state facts-facts which you have not at
empted to conrovert, and then said, "As to
he motive of this movement let others Judge"
{ your motives have been impugned it is be-
ause the facts themselves, and not any words
f mine create the impeachment.
Nothing In your letter has amazed me more
han what you say about my selecting FREQ
'olers for Office. No man can read what was
aid in your first communication, without Sec
ng that you called upon me TO appoint llr
er portion of the Free Soilers, or persons who
ad left tho Democratic party aud followed
fr. Van Buren, on the slavery question in 1S- I
8, than had before done. You spoke of the
arty as being divided into different sections"
nd complained that my appointments had
cen generally made from that portion Of the I
arty to which adhered. You was not speak
" of tho recent division at Syracuse, for {
ad made no nominations after that event hap
ened. You were speaking. of tho different I
ections as they had existed IN the past. You {
now very well that adhered TO that portion
the party which had not deserted the ma 7
onal standard in 1s4S; and no one can fail to 9
% that you intended should give larger I
1are of the offices TO tho Frea Soil seotion mi I