Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1866-05-17

SOIne eAWnt-dltuOugu TOT COnSu-
cradle time doubted and questioned
and after at least thirty years of un-
doubted and unquestioned use by a
sweeping change of administration, and
by both political parties, If we design
now TO declare different rule and change
the whole action of the government in
this respect, does ii behoove US to do II
in the indirect and sinister way this
amendment proposes have asked If
that was the design, to deny the Pres
ident the power to remove, why not
declare so and make the needful legis-
lation upon the suDieGt ? And ! have
been told that we could not pass snch A
,ow "hV not 2 let me ask. 1t must
be- suppose, because majority of this
body, or of both Houses, DO not believe
in the principle. If that be so, is II eX-
actly open and honest dealing to I'M
dertake to bolster up this amendment
by affecting to believe the President
transcends his power by making such
removals and new appointments ? [
must say that it is mode OF accom-
plshing purpose that does not com
mend itself to me. But notwithstand-
ing the argument in support Of the
amendment has been mainly that such
political changes were beyond the legal
and constitutional power of the Presi-
dent, the amendment upon its face con-
Cedes 1t, and provides those appointed to
fill vacancies caused by removals for
misconduct in Office shall be excepted
from the prohibition of payment. 1t
cannot be said that he has the power of
removal for one cause and has not for
another, lfby the Constitution he has
the power Of removal at all of necessity
he must be the sole and exclusive Judge
of the cause and necessity of removal.
The validity or legality of the appoint
ment of the officer appointed to fill such
vacancy could not be inquired into by
going back to inquire for what cause
his predecessor was removed. In the
exhaustive discussions which this sub
ject received from the eminent states
men of the early days of the government,
it was never suggested but that the
President was the only Judge Of the
cause fremoval-if he possessed the
power in any cause, This amendment
virtually breaches wholly new doc
trine. 1t comedies the power of re-
moval by the President, but assumes
that we may go back behind that, and
inquire into the reasons, for the pur-
pose Of determining whether the new
appointee shall have pay, 1t is Ger
tainly an anomaly that man may le-
gally fill and perform the duties of an
Office, but his right to compensation
shall depend upon the reasons that in
tiuenced the appointing power in max
ing the appointment. The last contest
on this subject of the Presidents power
Of removal was during President Jack
sons administration, and the great Wing
leaders Of that day made fearful effort
to bring the government back to what
they claimed was the true construction
of the Constitutions and denied the
President the power Of removal. But
they did not succeed, and all parties
have acted without question since upon
the other theory but it seems not to
have occurred to these eminent states
men, who thought the President could
legally remove officers and fill their
places with other persons, that they
could make it a barren honor by de-
priving the holders thereof of all COM
pensation. 1t has been reserved for
this financial generation to discover
this new mode of curing either defect
IN the Constitution or wrongful in
depreciation Oft. To me the idea is
strange and monstrous that man who
legally holds an Office, and properly
performs its duties, should not be paid
because the reasons for his appoint
ment were politically unsatisfactory. |
believe such position to be wholly in
tefensible, wrong in principle, upon
which no party can stand.
In Offering the motion to reconsider
he vote passing the bill, | happened to
'ay that such a doctrine seemed to me
% be almost revolutionary. | have
ince learned that radical Unionist has
10 right to use that term-that it be-
ongs wholly to persons of opposite po-
ltlcal prOclivities. | therefore take
cave to withdraw the word. What is
he real purpose and object OF this
suppose we may as well
peak OF things as they exist and as we
ii know them to be, as to pretend to
mink and talk of something else. A
Inference has arisen between the Presi-
ent and Congress in relation to the
roper policy to be pursued regarding !
be States lately in rebellion, who sep !
rated from us and formed themselves ,
nto separate government, and between
Vhom and us fierce war ragged for four
ears before we succeeded in conquering
hem. The President insists that as the
ebellion Is put down, and new State
overnments have been set up in those
tates, they are now entitled to be rep
esented in the two Houses of Congress-.
the members sent are loyal, and to
in all respects in the admin
tration OF the general government as
they had not rebelled, Congress, on
lie other hand, claims that all the legal
'lations between those States and the
eneral government. having by the re-
elton, and war consequent upon it,
zen severed, it rests with Congress, as
lie law-making department of the gov
nment, to restore them again, and that
doing so it is their right and their
atty to exact such assurances and guar
tiles as will protect the loyal part of
e nation against all danger from those !
no have shown such determination
destroy it. Neither the President nor
'ngress as yet show any disposition to