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

show the opinion Of the House. that il by fair
was afterwards struck out the second section il wa
provided that there should be in the said
said principal officer shall be remOUed from office Jy Pres
dent g ne United States, in any other vacancy shal
into law after animated discussion thereby cear,
implying the power OF removal be solely the President
and this construction on important point has since
/ prevailed"
i Judge Story, who by his very mental constitution
would be the last man to in such doctrine gives
up the question entirely the settled law of the country
In henls Commentaries, volume page 309 Is this Ian
guage:
'Thc consent of the Senate the Federalst observes
would be necessary TO dispaee well appoint and
ne goes on To Observe that those who best estimate the
value OF steady administration will be disposed prize
provision which connects the official existence public
from the great permaneney Of own composition will in
all probability be less subject INCONSISTENCY than any other
was given to the constitution by Congress- after great
alteration and discussion, different In the for
tempated being removable from Office by the President
The words of the act That oheneoer the Secretary
ted States in any other of vacancy in the Office
the assistant shall act &c. This amounted to Legislative
OF the constitution and it has since been
aequieseed in and acted of decisive authority in the
case 1t applies equally to other officer Of the govern
duration is not specially declared"
| At page $40:
This question has been made the subject of judicial
discussion and the construction given to the constitution in
1853 has continued to rest this loose incidental decara
tory opinion OF Congress- and the and practice OF
eminent since that time. 1t may be considered firmly
and denvey settled and there good and practical
utility in the construction
The ruling of the Supreme Court in parte Hennen
ported in ID Peterss Supreme Court Reports page 259
sustains the same view The senator NAV remember the
case, the immediate point of which, if remember correct
y turned upon the rghtul removal of clerk of federal
court have not the volume before me, but the decision
recognises the executive power TO dismiss from the public
service, laid down in the textbooks quoted above
Elliots Debates led 1884, vol A, p. $50, and Judge
Marshall in his life of Washington, 10Th vol, p 1929
shed all possible light upon the point and the opinions
all the Attorneys General who have given official
opinions sustain it.
read from opinion of Attorney General Le-
eae OF South Carolina. Aorneys General Opinions,
| 1862 He says
my consideration is whether the President of the United
States may strike officer from the rolls without trial by
courtmartia notwithstanding decision in that officer
by court of inquiry ordered for the investigation of
| his conduct"
Here presented by the President in the strong
est possible aspect court of inquiry having investigated
the of an officer and found him gutess the Pres
dent now undertakes to him without trial. The
question of the power TO do that submitted TO Mr. L
gare, and he said
Whatever might have thought of the power of remova
from office, If the subject ingra 1t is late
to dispute the settled construction of 1889 1t according
that construction from the very nature
e absolute in the President subject only bis responsible
ty to the country (h constituency for breach of such
ton, 307, sec. 1888.
obvious that if necessity sufficient ground for
such concession in regard officers the service
argument applies muho ortori to the military and naval
departments"
Mr. Writ the case of satteree Clark held similar Ian
guage
Mr Clark held his commission as during the
pleasure of the President and the power OF the 0sden to
dismiss him at pleasure is not dispued"Mr Wrt's Opn-
lon of February H. 1925 Attorneys General Opinions, edi
ton OF 1851, vol. /, p. 525.
Mr. Attorney General Mason has delivered an opinion
to the extent Mr.. Clifford has delivered merely
opinion, but very labored and elaborate argument
He winds up his argument which to the whole
! ground, by saying:
"The attempt to limit the exercise OF the power
tive officers
This pertinent and is directly issue with the ground
taken By the senator from Georgia who seems to make
distinction between civil officers and those holding
commissions in the military department.
" The attempt limit the exercise Of the power to the
executive officers in the civil service finds support the
language Of the constitution or in judicial decision The
and elementary work Of approved authority has venured
to counenance or commend it, In addition to these consde
raops has already appeared that the power without
such limitation has the sanction Of immemorial in
England, and for than half century in the United
States The argument against II appears to rest solely
the authority OF recent publication by Captain De Hart
OF the United States army, entitled Observations on Mill
tary Law and the Constitution and Practice of Courts Mar
tia IL is sufficient to remark, the present occasion, in
TO the citation made from that work. that the weight
OF authority this point altogether against the views
the author The construction Of 1850 forciby fixed in
principle and hiss been too long established in practice TO be
the attempt to limit and qualify Its application the officers
the civil service has been wholly unsuccessful am there
FORE Of opinion that part Of the claim Of Surgeon Du
Barry can be allowed"
In preceding part of this opinion Ito be found page
sGs Of the volume TO which have already refered Mr.
Clifford says
The only question that remains be considered Is tho
relating 10 the power of the President dismiss militia
naval officers from the service without the
martial II is very properly admitted in the argu
ment that the question distinctly settled by the Congress
Of 1885, in favor Of the Of the President far
relates to the civil officers Of the government II is
ded that they are removable a pleasure in all under
the constitution where the term Of office not specially de-
clared seems however, that OF the authors Of the
Federa before the adoption of the constitution and whC
pending before the people for ratification, had n
mated different opinion insisting that the Of the
No thought OF maintaining that the inferior offices
called in the constitution should be held during e The
doubt which whether the Of the Sen
not requisite effect removal In all where
required to the appointment The power
finally affirmed to be in the President alone by majo
ty both houses Of Congress- after great deberaon and
perhaps Of the abes discussions in the history Of the
country. q Eiots Debates $780, 4O4 That decision
acquesced In at that me and has since received the
ton OF every department Of the government Ii is worthy
Of special remark that several commentators the cons
tuition who do entirely admit the o the
srucon adopted nevertheless constrained regard the
question closed Mr. Justice Story after reoiting the
gument both sides, remarks If there has been alb
erraon from the true constitutional exposition Of the power
OF removal, (Which the reader must decide for himse)
will be difficult, perhaps impractcsbe after forty years
experience TO recall the practice correct theory g So
ry 1882 The remarks OF Chancellor Kent still
more decisive on this point. He 1T now be
sense and practical utility in the construction q Kent
, 3lLl
"rhe authority Of the President in this respect was sus
tanned in the debate Of 1889, upon the ground that 1T
ri nd nipnp