The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-05

that the executive department of this nation Is oneha il
Is singetha under the constitution there is but Ex
ecuve2 II rueand that is the view the committee take
ef the subjeeby the legislative authority of the nation
the executive power is to be exercised through the nsru
mentality of various departments to have been
contemplated by the constitution itself But matter
through how many departments that power may be eX-
ercisedno matter into how many subdivisions 1t may be
broken the President person the only unconary who
exercises any authority who gives validity to any act
In the different Departments of the Treasury of State OF
War, of the Navy il is the President and the President
alone, who speaks through his agents-agens which the
law he's created under the authority of the constitution
All the persons who exert any of the executive power
under the law his agents-deputes If you will for the
constitution declares that he executive power shall be
vested in the President" The committee therefore, in
judgment not in when it said that there no
instance from the foundation of the government in which
person. under the act of 1892 had ever been assigned to
the discharge of duties of the heads of departments who
was not in the public service in the very department where
the duties to be performed They all in the
ecuve department. for there is no instance in which sim
gle has been called upon under the authority of the
of l792 perform any such functions unless he
either in inferior IN higher position in one of the
divisions of the executive department of the government as
from the legislative and the judiciary
But the gentleman from New York asserted that the
mittee clearly in error when they said that no other
than in the executive service OF the country could
be appointed because the language of the statute OF l7a2
general and he asserted that the President might ap-
point any other person. Now If the gentleman will tecur
to the report of the committee be will find that the posi-
tQn OF committee was tns: not tna
proper construction of the of 1902 person could be
egmaey assigned by the President of the United States
to discharge the duties of the heads of any of the depart
ments who not in of those departments No; but
that could be authorized act who not in
the public service The expression in the report WAS that
there had been instance in which person had been Sc
ectcd under the authority of the act of 1892 by the sc.
lection Of person not then in the public service and in
the very department where the duties to be perform
edD And if the gentleman from New York will make Use
of his usual acumen and If he will invoke the ordinary
principles which apply to the construction OF statutes he
will arrive at the same conclusion.
Mr.. HAVEN. Will the gentleman allow me to inter
rupt him moment2 would not do So but he is making
wrong impression. The committee in terms in their
report say not only that usual discretion would warrant
the selection for Office in that way but they this Ian
guage:
Nor is it conceivable that it would be exercised in any
Mr. TAYLOR. If the gentleman would look at the re-
port he would find that the expression is Ain the public
service have looked at the report this morning. and
perfectly certain of its language. ,a
But now let me call the gentlemans attention to par
tcuar consideration When statute is passed 1t is to be
understood in manner which can give It effect This
government is one of law. The different departments OF
the government are created by law All Of the functions
imposed upon them to be discharged Offices The
constitution Of the United States declares that every off
ty shall take OATH 1t is not conceivable that any per-
son should be assigned by the President OF the United
States to discharge the functions of office created by
law unless that person under the obligation Of oath
to support the constitution of the United States is
declared in the constitution all officers shall be.
known there are instances in which individuals dis
charge the duties of particular Offices of which they
not the proper ncumbent Some Of those Instances
familiar to all who acquainted with our courts of JUS
tce with ordinary judicial proceedings That is the
case with the office of clerk There may be deputy clerk
That is the with the Office Of marshal There may be
deputy marshal But unless the law provides that there
shall be authority to administer oath deputy, he
takes no OATH There is extraordinary authority which
will empower to take step which the law itself does
not provide for contemplate With respect to mar
shal there legal provision The deputy is compelled
to take oath before he act With respect to many
other officers there is such provision and there s no
provision for it in instances of the kind under consdera
tion, and will venture assert that there
instance in which person holding acting authority
ever known to take oath of office. And now le
ask can any enter upon the discharge of any office
even though it be second one without taking the oa
required by the constitution 0. ,.s7...
Now, Mr. Chairman, will come to the examination Of
the question presented by these claims will look at il
from two points of view because it be remembered
that the matter which shall be called upon to decide in
the House is of double characterreally involves two
questions In the first place. had under consideration
the of Asbury Dickins it from the Court o
Claims In which the Court Of Claims declare that he ia
attached to the place of chief and next to the
pensaon which the law has attached to the Office OF Sec
rery of the Treasury Secretary of State and that be
shall take them both together Then the gentleman from
New Jersey Mr. PENNINGTON presented, amendment
to this proposition the bill coming from the Senate which
provides that he shall not be entitled to this double
that shall the the higher
Office while he acted for the officer filing IT. Or in other
words that he should be paid the difference between bis
compensation chief clerk which has already been paid
to him. and that which attached to the Office of Secre
tary The first question which will examine will be as
to the proprety Of giving assent to the proposition
contained in the act coming from the Court of Claims
Shall we act on the principle asserted by the Court OF
Claims, and accord to Asbury Dickins and to Michael
Nourse in addition to the compensation which paid to
them for the inferior Offices which they held the compen
saton to which they would have been entitled if they had
actually held the offices of the superior grades
There has been good deal said, Mr. Chairman, about
special enactmens of Congress- There has been but little
reference to principle, For myself consider that what
Congress has said day may be unsald the next that
any provision which Congress has made any subject
of yesterday be overturned by bad practice of to-day
But sir while Is true that good practice may be
turned by bad practice hold that it is not only right
for u.s. but that is duty to overturn bad practice
by good one when we have opportunity In this in
stance however there has been general practice give
and we come to the examination of the principle involved
in the decision of the Court of Claims without being
meed by any remarkable succession of bad precedens
What is that decision What is the principle involved
t2 The gentleman from New York seemed to think that
that principle because had been recognised by
decisionnot of the Supreme Court of the United States
but of the gentleman who presdes it chief justice
at crcuitmust therefore be assented and deemed
rect .H.. ... ...... ...a
Sir all the questions which come before the Congress Of
the United States matter they do grow out o
claims preferred by private individuals have mehing in
them of political character. Their determination de-
pends upon the exercise of the legislative rather than the
judicial power of the nation aud for one believe in the
existence of no binding precedents upon action.
Congress in existence is bound by the action of the
Congress before it, of that Of any previous Congress
No decision is to be recognised and revered by
that decision be right do not yield to any member