Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1854-01-22
cosUNICafIoS
THE GOVERNOR AND INSPECT 0RS.

Editors Union and As,ercaa. &
Seeing in the iItnne, of the 10Th inst, attack
upon the Governor for his course concerning the
Pentcntary, ard knowing more OF the facts OF the
case than the writer of the attack TO have in
his possession, ! wish,io correct his errors, and in
so dong will set the in some betIerlight be-
fore the public The writer of that piece has not
only taken a one sided view Of the whole matter,
but has shown himself ignorant of all the 'fdcts >
and has merely taken the newspaper statements
concerning the matter as facts, not of which is
wholly true. / hold that when q man makes a
charge upon public officer of having acted wrong
in his official character, he should, at least kHolc
that his main facts, stated, are true. None of
TIE man statements in that piece are correct and
all the ''inuendOes' entirely without shade of
proof to sustain them He intimates that the Gov
ernor has violated the fundamental principles of the
Government and acted faithless to his professions
by "a palpable attempt to grasp power not given
by the laws" Such ''inuendoes' are harmless,
! nevertheless aRjust. Passing mere opinions, |
will notice the facts and arguments set fortl in that
article, in which the main objects seem to be
TO prejudice the mind Of the public against the
Governor, and possible obtain the keepers place
for Mr. PAGE, who it is said is entitled toit because
Messrs SLOAN, AMENr and SMITH, voted for him.
After stating the facts as to the time the Governor
sent in the names of those men as Inspectors the
writer states that they ''were confirmed: that the
clerk certified that fact to the Governor and that
the Governor delivered the certificate to the persons
thus appointe1," &c, &c. He also says "thus every
act and formaty necessary to invest them with the
Office perfected and finished and then quotes
part OF Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in case
in Washington City from Branches reports The
cases are not parallel however and if they WERE
that opinion and the itself, are both against
him. Said MARBERRY lost his suit and the President,
(JEFFERsoN) showed clearly his right TO withhold
said commission even after it had been signed by
JOHN ADAMS, while President. In the case, how
evtr, before u.s. the Inspectors were not confirmed
The Senate had voted for their confirmation, but
that did not confirm them 1t required either the
lapse of two days a motion to reconsider to be
rejected, either of which would have consummated
the action necessary to confirmation. The clerk
did not certify to the Governor said confirmation,
land if he had it would have been premature in him
to do so; he having no right to transmit any thing
from the Senate until it is beyond the action of the
Senate) The Governor did not give any certificate,
or commission TO those men to act and they were
informed before they acted, that their confirmation
not complete; that the Senate still had control
of the matter, and might reconsider the vote Now,
these are facts If they not they can be easily
disproved.
But the only question in this case is had the SEN
ate right to reconsider. II so, then these men
neuer were confirmed and any action they may
have had as Inspectors, is Of no effect The Con-
stitution authorizes the Senate to make its own
rules for its government One of its rules gives it
two days to reconsider any question:" question
is any matter before the Senate upon which vote
may be had. The Senate did reconsider its vote in
this matter and assert that even though the Gov
ernor had been entirely satisfied with these men
and their appointments, yet the Senate had con-
troll of the matter and attera reconsideration (Which
in this instance equivalent to rejection) these
men had no more authority to act than they if had
never been nominated The only question then
being the right of the Senate to reconsider its own
action, ask what court has jurisdiction over the
Senate's constitutional action? A few words as to
the case quoted from lst Cranch s. Reports.
1877. This was as follows: John Adams, on the
Bird OF March, made many appointments Hewas 90
ing out of Office at II o'clock that night The Senate
sat till midnight and confirmed them. The Pres-
dent signed commissions that night. Jefferson
came into power the next day and refused to de-
liver the commissions. Marberry brought suit for
his commission in the Supreme Court That court
decided it had Jurisdiction over the case and dis
missed it. But Chief Justice Marshall animated
that Marberry ought to have his commission. In
that case however the commission was issued and
signed, but not delivered and the Senate did not
reconsider its action. In the case here there was
no commission and the Senate did reconsider in due
time. Are the cases parallel? Not in the least;
and yet IN that case the applicant failed: will
not notice the other misrepresentation in that
piece as suppose they culled from that prolific
source of error, public rumor. "a MAN"