The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-06-06

and not of e1Pedisnoy:"
"The form of military commission in general express
describes the tenure Of Office and very clearly recognises
the doctrine Of 1883 This commission to continue in forc
curing the pleasure of the President Of the United States to
he time being In perfect accordance with these views Mr.
baer holds the following explicit language in relation e
of February, 1887 lie was liable like ali other officers,
or removed The precise question under con
the United States, the lth Of February si2 and the
oowng an extract from his opinion in the of Robert
d. randolph 1T obvious that if necessity is sufficient
ground Tor such concession in regard to offices in the civil
service, the argument applies o ortOi TO the military
ana naval departments have do doubt therefore, that
the President bad the constitutional power to do what he
% ana that the officer in question is not the service of
beyond question that the power exists in Eng
land and may be exercised all occasions in dismssng
and instances given where officers of rank in the
navy have been dismissed after having been tried by
ana OF the charges exhibited against them
| Il mcArthury l2S.)
Now, sir maintain that the consistent practice of the
government has been in accordance with the construction
OF the constitution given by Mr. Madison himself who
one OF its trainers Mr. Madison supported it, and settled
this construction in the first Congress of the United States
1t has never been departed FROM but has always been the
consistent usage OF every President from General Washing
ton day The Attorneys General of the country without
any division, have all concurred in it, have in my hand
list of officers who have been removed by almost every
PRESIDENT who has held power in the country. President
jackson removed three at time He removed after
court OF inquiry sat upon him. will not give these
cases in detail but will present them hereafter and have
uoupt tnht equal number might be found the mil
ltary, as we'll as the naval service.
the senator from Georgia totally in when he
undertook to assert here that in Great Britain this
power was not exercised by the Crown. undertake to
say the contrary that there has been day
hour in England when the Crown did possess the pow
er of removing its officers in both branches of the military
service There is the issue between us.
But the senator from Georgia, with this array of
thorty before him. attempts to establish distinction be-
tween the civil and military officers of the government
upon the ground that Congress has declared by law a
1900 for The government Of the nary) certain offences
mited by naval officers cognzable and punishable by
val courtsmartia and that therefore, they be dis
missed for committing either of them, without trial But
does not the senator know that there special forum also
provided for the trial of civil officers Constitution Of the
United States article O. section J and does it follow
"hrefore, that they may not be removed by executive
power, without such trial.
And when he pursuing the line of argument, says
that the law satute of S23 provides expressly how
tain naval officers may be dismissed without trial and that
therefore, they cannot be removed in any other with
ont trial. does he not know also that the law TACT March
1860 equally provides for the dismissal of civil officers
in certain cases; and does it follow 'fAeFgorej'
that they may be dismissed by executive power? Sir
cannot but think that when the senator from Georgia
shall reexamne his position he will find nothing in it 10
sustain the distinction he has attempted to establish aud
which distinction has been expressly repudated by every
year in the progress of this government.
will not dwell longer this point, as have great
deal OF ground TO cover and throw out these matters
more as suggestions for argument than arguments them
selves.
The from Georgia seemed to admit that the Pres
iden might exercise the power of removal if that power
derived, under the constitution through act Of
Congress- and that Congress might legislae this power
into bis hands. This argument is suicidal confess, sir
my inability to the application of this proposition that
the Executive power of dismissal must be derived from
legislation Is not his argument answered by the very
terms OF this law? which are:
shall be found by the said board incapable performing the
duties of their respective Offices ranks grades, shall II
the rolls placed the order of their rank aud seniority
at the time list in the Navy Register, to be entitled
the reserved list"
Could legislation have more unequivocally conferred
power2
Here sir will leave the question of Executive power.
By gentlemen il has been coutended that though
It's execution has rendered its results so aco VOID and
that all those who reserved dropped must be
garded as if no such law existed.
By others is said that the manner Of its execution has
rendered its results not void but yoidAbe and only far
the reserved officers concerned and show that
the execution Of the act did not conform to its require
! J. That the board did not make its examinations in
public and give trial hearing TO the parties con-
cerned
O. That the board did make that careful examination
which the law prescribed.
3. That the board in examining to the efficiency Of
officers had no right to examine as TO moral dsquaihca-
tions
Before advertng these points will meet the singu-
lar proposition that the officers dismissed by the Execu
tive, under the boards recommendation are still in the
service by placing my response in the strongest hight
say sir that when officer dismissed the service
by the Executive pursuance of the judgment of court
martial there Is power in this government TO restore
him without executive nomination aud that though ii
may be discovered after such dismissal that he con-
viced by peured witnesses and tried and sentenced by
peured court Congress alone is powerless TO restore
him This my Issue with the senator from Mississippi
1t has been contended by others that although the ac
ton Of the board under the law has not rendered all that
they did null and void their acts vodabe at least ms
regards the reserved officers though the dropped class Of
officers have remedy but executive nomination.
Now sir having the condition of the service the
chara ter Of the evils to be reformed let us zee exactly
what duties the law did prescribe and next how these du
! ties were discharged:
J. board be assembled by the Secretary Of the
Navy to consist Of rc captains re coamanders and rt
! Retaeudnts and,
O. The Secretary prescribe "regulatoHs for ih
proceedings"
The preliminary duties devolved by the law upon
the Secretary Did he discharge them Certainly he did
and the law conferred discretionary power TO select
these officers from their several grades without regard 10
age position service he exercised IL as 10 elicit the
almost universal approval Of the service Unaumity upon
cpated but hesitate not to say that he could not have
made selection which would have proved more accepta
| BILE to the navy
Having assembled the board he "pTescrJed his regula
lions for procecdiRgs and here his duties ceased and
those of the board commenced But before leaving this
point let say that in this the law conferred wisely
think upos the chief Of the navy who presumed best
know the condition and necessities Of the service and Il
more less responsible for both large discretion In this
matter In framing his regulations he consulted and coun
seled with the Attorney General upon the construction
the law his duties under It, and the duties Of tht
board and bis regulations in all and every particular
were regarded by the Attorney General in strict confor
nifty with the terms and the intent OF the law and sir
think the clear manly, and appropriate terms in which
they are expressed and the patriotic spirit they breathe