Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-31

of my friend from Alabama, Mr.. PHILIPS
There is wide difference of opinion between
the gentleman and myself upon grave question
of constitutional law; yet listened with very
great pleasure to his able argument, for it was
the argument of jurist; and / am sure that
this House was satisfied when he came to the
conclusion of his remarks, that he was a man
who, by the power of his intellect, will adorn
the country which he is destined so ably to
serve. And for that reason, with greater pain
l heard him say, that an officer of this govern
ment has sort OF estate, vested right, in the
office he may happen to hold
MIR. PHILIPS. If the gentleman will allow
me, | think he has Inexperienced the point
desired to make What / said was that when
an officer had once been appointed under a
law of Congress, by the head of department,
he holds that office against the power of Con-
gress to remove him, and against the power Of
the President of the United States to remove
him. lie cannot be removed except by the
officer who appointed him. That is according
to my reading of the Constitution.
Mr.. BA4L4. | did not misunderstood the
gentleman. The clearness and perspicuity
with which he states his propositions makes it
| impossible for him to be misunderstood. He
says that when Congress has authorized the
appointment of an ofiicer-an inferior officer,
as he maintains this to be-and conferred the
appointment upon the Secretary that neither
Congress nor the President has the power to
remove him, but that the power vests solely in
the officer who appointed him. Now, sir let
us look at that proposition for moment. The
gentleman's language is too plain to be mis-
understood. He says that neither Congress or
the President can remove him. agree with
him that the President cannot because the
power of removal belongs to the power of APP
pointment. And if he means that Congress
cannot by law turn A out of an Office and put
b in, l also agree with him. But if he means
that when Congress has passed law creating
an office, and providing for the mode of filing
it, they have not the power to pass another law
abolishing the Office or changing the mode of
appointment and in either case vacating the
Office, then l differ from him.
Mr.. PHILIPS. Oh no; on the contrary,
l said, in express terms, that Congress had the
power to abolish the office, and that that was
the only way in which they could get rid of the
officer.
Mr.. BAYLY. | differ with the gentleman.
Not only has Congress the power to abolish
the office, and thereby get clear of the incum-
bent, but in case Of officers authorized by
law only, they may change his tenure of Office
And further still, they may change the mode
OF his appointment at any time and it is in
pursuance Of that very power that this bill is
before the House. 1t is to change the mode
of appointment of this officer, as we have a
perfect right to do. The question has been
thus decided, over and over again, under this
government. In England, | know, the idea
exists that an officer has vested right in his
Office. But even in England that is not the law,
with cafara 10
existing by immemorial usage; and of that i'm
memorial usage the tenure of office forms
part. But even in England, in recent Offices
those created by statute--it has been decided
that the tenure, like the office itself, depends
upon the meaning of the statute, and it can be
changed by law at any time.
The idea has been utterly and always repu-
dated in this country, that an officer created
by law has any vested interest in his office.
You may make any change you please, and he
has no legal right to complain. If additional
duties or increased responsibilities are imposed
upon him, he cannot decline either The
question has been decided again and again,
that if an office is created by law, you may by
law impose as many additional duties as you
please upon the incumbent, and he is COM
PEELED to perform them or resign his office.
When an office is created by law you may
change the tenure or change the mode of APP
pointment. But it is not SO, admit, in this
respect, when the Office is created by the Con-
stitution. And desire to call the attention
of the committee to the distinction draw
In the case where an office is created by the
Constitution, and the mode of appointment is
therein prescribed, his duties defined, and the
tenure fixed, you cannot, by law, change either
the nature of the Office, the mode of appoint
ment, or the tenure, but where the office is
created by law, the very power which creates
the office has the authority either to change its
tenure, to modify its duties or to abolish it al
together. ~
Mr.. PHILIPS. Will the gentleman from
Virginia allow me to ask him another question?
Mr.. BAYLY. With great pleasure
Mr.. PHILIPS. Does the gentleman con-
tend that if an act of Congress vested an APP
pontment in the President, and that the APP
pointment had been made, that subsequent
Congress could nullify or rescind the appoint
ment, and direct new appointment by a new
mode?
Mr.. BAYLY. Unquestionably. That is pre-
cisely what l maintain and if it be true that
in the case where an appointment, authorized
by an act of Congress, has been made that the
office is thereafter beyond its control, then
Congress cannot repeal an act which it itself
had passed.
And here, allow me to remark, is the origin
of my opposition to the amendment introduc-
ing the word thereafter" That hereafter
rests-and rests only upon the soundness Of
the views presented by the gentleman from Ala
bama, Mr.. PHILIPS. If the officer has any
vested interest," will not use the word " es-
tate then hereafter" would be eminently
proper, because you cannot legislate RETROSPECT.
lively in respect to interests. But we have no
vested interests in this country in Offices of any
sort, except in those Offices which are during
good behavior, and which, by the Constitution,
are beyond the pale Of legislation. | dislike
that word hereafter" as an amendment-itis |
an anti-republican amendment There is no
propriety in the use of that word thereafter
except upon the supposition that this officer
has vested interest in respect to which you
ought not to legislate retrospectively. There
is great antirepublican principle involved in
that little amendment, hereafter" If it is
proper hereafter, why is it not proper now ? |
There can be but one logical answer given to |
that inquiry, and that is, that This officer has |