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

err and should exercise IT. OF consuainng every officer
perform his duty for though true abstract propos
t0n II is practically untrue. Political influence which
unfortunately is often invoked by the vicious the
mertorous Is the lever at work to turn the Secretary
from the true interests of the service BY this influence
the executive branches of the government working fire.
quently with mere majority in Congress, must more
less be controlled AS illustration sir of its effect
remember that eonvesng with senator upon this point
he told me OF an instance in which young officer from
his State under sailing ORDERS appealed to him to inter-
oede with the Secretary to be relieved He did So and OF
course that officer yielded and transferred the orders
another On the following day. however, he was again
appealed TO by this one who proved also To be consttu
ent to get him relieved from sea duty To this second APP
peal the Secretary also yielded when my friend fearing
that third constituent might be detailed requested the
Secretary TO order from his State TO perform the
duty and his request complied with as favor to him.
SELF And strange as 1t may see sir this is not iso-
lated case and have but to appeal TO gentlemen around
TO know that there scarcely in the body who has
not been similarly mporuned senator rarely refuses
to prefer such request leaving, rs he may very justly
the responsibility OF granting refusing ii to the Sec
rotary.
In this condition of the service and in view of the fact
that France and England not only increasing the
erisI OF their naVes, but were eliminating from them
everything like ncompeency this measure OF reform was
brought forward
As the passed the Senate il contained no special ref
to the dismissal of officers but the board the d-
ties of the Secretary, and the recommendations for the fur
Tough and reserved lists the now and in this
shape Notwithstanding the arguments of the
tor from Delaware Mr. BAyARDl it met his hearty ap-
proyal.
speech of the senator from Delaware of the from
Georgia. In replying to then do so from memory and if
should make an error in statement trust they will at
tribute 1t to that cause alone The senator from Delaware
was in error in announcing | understood him to
nounce that he did not vote for the bill, did ap
prove it, or did not give it his most hearty concurrence
was not anxious for its passage have the debates before
me, and his language was this:
t'The bill it passed the Senate could assent to cheer
fully One OF the amendments of the House imbodes pro-
vision by which irresponsible five officers be
created upon whose opinions belief to the capacity
fitness of their fellows in the service the President of the
United States without responsibility may drop them from
S or oy sS0asn have been in
Senate passed the bill without granting to the board which
might place upon the reserved list but still leave him
the OF subsistence the which might throw him
out of the service altogether. This is my obecon the
amendment"
Am / not borne out by the very words of my friend
from Delaware Mr. BAyARD the assertion that be did
approve this bill in all respects but the feature with ref
In this form it went to the House. where it well
known that bill could pass without imbodying pro-
vision for dsmissng officers. The House believe prop
ery understood the condition of the service and coming
directly from the people, and having account for the
val expenditure of $ll,000,0o0 they doubtless felt that
they could not justify, in act to reform the navy the
retention of men in the public service totally incompetent
not from misfortune not from hard service accident in
the line of their duty. but from their neggences
their errors their vices Hence they regarded the dis
missa OF certain class Of men essential to all reform
Now sir let examine this act Without delaying the
Senate by reading it, referring in detail its provisions
contend that ii enacts but three conditions things
which did not before exist.
1t provided for board whose advice the executive
might might not follow, at his discretion. But
this board the President might have assembled with
out statutory Intervention, had Congress committed the
duties prescribed by the law nakedly to his hands
1t provided class of pay called the reserved pay
and
1t temporarily increased the numbers some of the
different grades,
These the provisions the act and by these tests
the questions of its constuonaliy raised here to be de-
termined.
The urlough pay and the power of placing officers upon
It, had always existed in the service and had been sane
toned by law and the executive power dismiss officers
without trial regarded established and this
feature Of executive perogatve the backbone Of this
reform will ask the attention of senator's TO its brief con-
sideraton.
If senator's shall with that apologies due
for engrossiug their time in the discussion Of this question:
trust they will be found in the Jealous and able manner
in which the senator from Georgia has presented it.
do not regret that he has raised this point confess
that came here with precisely his opinions upon it. One
Of my first acts in legislation the proposition that
officer of the navy shod ever dismissed from the
vice without the judgment Of courtmartal of his peers
submitted it to Of the brightest legal minds Of the
country, aud going the entire argument submit
ted by the senator from Georgia reformed my opinions
Sir while listening to the senator from Georgia, follow
ing him step by step ground which so ably pre-
occupied sxtyseven years ago while admiring the bold
with which lac grapped the question: and sought not
only TO roll back the consistent practice Of mis- Cover
since its foundation but overturn the construction
given to the constitution by its trainers themselves when
saw nln engaged IN suCn task-a TASK more hopeless
than that Of Ssyphus-I could not but reflect how much
ably than myself he would have presented my side Of
| the argument had he taken the constitutional view.
The power of the Executive from office was
Grst auhoritavey broachcd In this country by Mr. Ham,
lton, in number Of the Federals and that very
briefly indeed In that number he makes distinction
between military ocets and civilians. Mr. Madison who
believe, wrote twenty-egh numbers Of the Federast
does not refer to the question all But in the very first
Congress after the adoption Of the constitution this
sructon of the executive power received an authoritative
calculation.
The question came up directly in the proposition to
absh the Treasury Department in 1885, and it de-
cded In the House of Representatives by vote Of "a to
20 and in the Senate by the casting vote Of the Vice
President that the power Of removal vested by the
constitution In the Executive alone
Mr. TOOMBS. | will correct the senator He has made
slight mistake That vote Of "a to 40 upon giving
the power the President in tho bill establishing the De
partment of Foreign Affairs The final recognising
and admitting that power % to 20. The other
a bill, which | admitted constitutional, tc
give the power 10 the President to particular
officers
Mr. MALLORY. The senator is, undoubtedly, more cor
rect to the distinct vote by which the passed
quoted from memory entirely. refer for authority on
this subject not to but to every textbook Of the
try upon constitutional law refer TO Story to Kent tc
Sergeant refer 10 every who has written sin
gle line upon the executive power over removals whether
civil military If have correctly understood the
tor from Georgia he has not produced single legal
hority ythinR beyond the dicta of individuals
debates in Congress TO sustain his view Of the question
with the exception Of his reference to De Harts views
supported, they were by written opinion of Genera
| Scott
In Sergeants Constitutional Law, page 372 he says
"n organizing the departments Of the executive BY thu
senaves In what the officers who we're TO f then
should be removable IL contended that the power