Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1866-05-17
IAe Ancadment 10 the Postal An.
preparation Hill.
srRpoH OF SENATOR POLAND.

State, to reconsider the Postal ApBro-
priation bill, for the purpose OF striking
or the section forbidding the payment
of compensation to officers appointed by
the President during the recess Of Con
gress, prevailed by the following vote {:
Yeas-Cowan, Davis, E?ollttlc, Edmunds,
eeesenden, Foster, Gnthrie, Lane Of Kansas,
.cDotgaI mo- ,-ran. Nsesml1h, merton, to%VG oh
Riddle, ,SanlshG.iry, SHERMAN, -, '"-
"iiIhke' wiley, Williams, WilsOn-21.
Ndga- anthony, Chandler, Clark, CONFESS,
lane OF Indiana, Morrill,, Nye, Pomeroy, Ram
sey, sprague Sumner, Trumbull, Wade-1s.
Absent or not r0tiBg- Brown, Bucka-
lew, Cragin, Dixon, Grimes, Hendricks, John.
son, Kirkwood Wright, Yates-l0,
The section in question was originally
adopted as an amendment to the bill, by
. vote of 10 to II. Action yet remains
to be taken, finally, on the proposed sec
ton, and the vote by which the recon
slderation was carried seems to indi-
cate its defeat.
One objection to the section was that
the proper way to reach the end pro.
posed therein, was by direct Congress
ional action on Il bill introduced for the
purpose, and not by lacking on such an
amendment to an appropriation bill.
Judge Poland addressed the Senate on
his motion to reconsider as follows
Mr.. President: voted for the amend
ment to this bill, and for the bill itself,
with great hesitation and with the de-
sign, If could not become better salts
fed with it, to move to have it recOnsid-
cred. Subsequent reflection satisfied me
that the amendment ought not to be
adopted, and | therefore made the mo-
tion to reconsider. The amendment pro-
posed by the Senator from Illinois to
the bill is general and comprehensive in
its terms, ana denies any payment of
salary or compensation 10 officers APP
pointed by the President before confirm
alton by the Senate, unless appointed to
fill vacancies happening during the re-
cess of the Senate by death, resignation,
expiration of term, or removal for Off
eial misconduct. 1t is said that one of
the mischiefs which this amendment is
designed to prevent is the filling Of va
Cancies which exist while the Senate is
in session, and where there is an oppor-
tunity to submit nominations for their
advice and consent, and this is omitted,
or the nomination is rejected by the SEN
ate and the same persons reappOinted
after the Senate adjOurns. If the amend
ment went no further than this, [ could
very Cheerfully support it-for the Ian
guage of the Constitution is very clear
that the Presidents power of appoint
ment, without the advice and consent of
the Senate, is confined to vacancies that
happen during the recess of the Senate.
But the amendment has scope and
meaning far beyond this. The power of
the President 10 fill all vacancies that
happen during the recess of the Senate
is not denied, but this amendment de-
clares that unless the vacancies happen |
in particular way, the person appoint |
ed shall receive no salary of compensa- |
ton until confirmed by the Senate. I |
have not examined whether the excep-
tions cover every possible occasion of |
vacancies which can occur, except re-
movals for other reasons than for mis- |
conduct or malfeasance in office. This |
is the class of cases which the amend |
ment is designed to reach, and | think |
its distinguished mover will not deny |
that the main object and purpose of the |
amendment is to declare that, if the |
President makes removals from offices
for mere political reasons, and thus
causes vacancies during the recess of
the Senate, the persons he appoints to
I'LL them shall receive no payment for
their services in office until confirmed
by the Senate. In such cases the real
question is not on the power of the
President to I'LL vacancy, but as to his
power to thus make q vacancy. This
brings up the old question of the power
of the President to remove from office
persons to whose original appointment
the advice and consent of the Senate
was necessary.
The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hend.
erson), with his usual straightforward
ness and frankness, boldly avows that
IN his judgement the Presidents power {
Of removal in such cases is commensur- {
ate only with his power Of appointment, !
md that the consent of the Senate is as |
necessary to the removal as to the APP ;
Dointment. The able and learned argu-
nent of the Senator went far toward
convincing me that if the question could ,
low be considered an open one, that was
he true construction of the Constitu- ]
ion. The Senator from Maine (Mr. Fes- {
enuen) declared his willingness to sup
,ort the amendment, except for the ]
clause requiring the cause Of removal to i
,e reported to the Senate; but he ad- 7
nitted the power of the President, under i
he Constitution, to make removals i
without the consent of the Senate. In t
,rging the necessity Of the amendment, r
Iowever, he dwelt wholly upon the 9
buse of the appointing power by max b
ng appointments after the adjournment b
4 the Senate, which might have been t
cen made and submitted to the Senate e
While in session. | should be doing il
hat Senator great injustice to suppose d
hat be did not fully understand that a
he matter aimed at was altogether Il
ifferent and broader one. "
Other Senators have fought shy upon t
lis question, and have argued in favor C
1.-THE amendment, not exactly denying VI
he power of removal, but under pro- el
station, as a special pleader would say. dt
hat they do not admit it. They have u
lid, conceding that he has the power p