The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-23
Removals from Office -COngre ssiOnal Pre-
cept and Practice.
From tie Times.

From tie Times.
In the House, on Thursday, Mr.. Spaldiug, of
OhiJ from a Committee OF Conference, reported
IN favor OF a provision that the present United
States Minister TO Portugal should receive no
compensation tor any further service, he may
render IN that capacity. MIR. Raymond asked
HIM If he had any objection to stating for lcbat
reasons the Committee maze thls unusual report.
JuGge Spaldlng replied tnaG he would state no
reason, eXcep! that the Committee was unanl-
nous In its recommendation; and refusing very
peremponly and emphaJically to permit Mr..
Raymond 10 ask anY1urtner question or make
any furtner remark on the subject, he moved
the previous question, and forced the report,
without debate, explanation, or delay, through
the House.
There is nothing very remarkable in Judge
Spalolngs action in shutting Oil DEBATE and
forcing action upon n delicate and doubtful
party question. 1t has come to be the common
practice under the pressure of party emergen
cies, and Judge SpalGine only follows Inc fashion
-dlscourteous and dscreuitable as il is.
But the action OF Congress on this matter is
worthy OF a more full and distinct statement.
Mr. James +. Harvey has been TOR the last tour
years ana is now United States Minister at Por.
tugal. Some three months since he wrote an
unofficial letter to Secretary Seward on current
political topics, in the comse OF which he eX-
pressed his concurrence IN the policy Of the
President and MS dissent from the action OF
Congress. This letter was published in the
Times and at once attracted the attention of
members OF the House. MT. stevens, Wnen the
Diplomatic Appropriation bill was before the
House, moved an amendment that the mission
to Portugal be abolished, and the House con-
CURED. On reaching the Senate this amend
ment was rejected; and when 1t came back the
House refused tu concur, and asked Committee
OF Conference; ana this Committee finding tnat
The mission could not thus be abolished, and
vet determined to get rlu of Mr. Harvey, re.
sorted to the means reported bg Judge Spalding,
but which Judge Spalding lefused TO explain or
10 allow any body else to explain on the floor of
OF the House.
Congress has thus indorsed, in the strongest
possible manner, by its own action, the removal
OF office holders tor expressions oil opinions hos
tile to its own. The only ohense alleged against
Mr. Harvey IS the writing OF a private letter
expressing dissent from the political opinions
and actions of Congress! Congress, by the
Constitution. has nothing whatever 10 do with
appoin tments or removals OF otfice-holders; yet
it resorts TO, the remarkable and extraordinary
process of legislation, ior the sole purpose OF
accomplishing the removal OF an otlice-holder
guilty of the henous crime of differing from
Congre IN opinion, and oil expressing that diff
terence in a private letter.
And at the very time Congress is thus resort
! ing TO such means OF exercising power never
| conferred upon 1t, for such reason, it Is trying
TO rouse the indignation OF the Whole country
! against the President of the United States fol-
| doing the same thing, IN the exercise OF power
! expressly conferred upon him by the Constltu
| ton, and in exact conformity with what has
| been the usage of the Government from the day
| OF Its foundation until the present time.
The zeal OF Congress IN regard to removals
! from Office evidently is very one-sided and no
! very dlsinterested sentiment. They have M
| sort of objection to such removals when thel
| can make them on their own behalf anC
| against those who differ from them IN opinion
| In all other cases they are opposed to them Oh
| principles Judge Spaldn5 is not exactly TIT
man whom we expected to lead off IN such
| practice.