Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1866-05-18

every political change of administra
ton, and by both political parties,
we design now to declare a differen
rule, and change the whole action O
the Government in this respect, doe.
1t behoove US to do it in the indirec
and sinister way this amendment pro
poses
L have asked if that was the design
to deny to the President the power t.
remove, why not declare so, and make
the needful and proper legislation OF
the subject, and [ have been told thai
we could not pass such law. WHY
not, let me ask? 1t must be. SUP
pose, because a majority of this body
or OF both Houses, do not believe
In the principle. If that be so. is it
exactly open and honest dealing to
undertake to bolster up this amend
m II by affecting to believe
that the President transcends his
power by making such removals and
new appointments ? must be allow
ed to say that it is a mode of accom-
pllshlng purpose that does not com
mend itself to me.
But Notwithstanding the argument
IN support Of the amendment has been
mainly that such political changes
were beyond the legal and constitu-
tlonal power of tide President. the
amendment upon its face comedies it
and provides that those appointed to
fill vacancies caused by removals for
misconduct in office. shall be exccpt-
ed from this prohibition of payment.
1t cannot be said that he has the DOW
er OF removal for one cause. and has
not Tor another. If by the Constitn-
ton 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 appointment Of the
officer appointed to fill such a 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
JccJ received from the eminent states
men OF the early days OF the Govern
ment, 1t was never suggested but that
the President was the only judge of
the cause of removal, if he possessed
the power i'll any case. This amend
mcnt virtually breaches a wholly new
doctrine. 1t comedies the power of
removal by the President, but assumes
that we may 90 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 a man NAV
legally fill and perform the duties Of
an office, but his right to compensa-
ton shall depend upon the reasons
that influenced the appointing power
IN making the appointment.
The last contest on this subject OF
the Presidents power OF removal was
during President Jackson's Admins
tratlon, and the great Wing leaders
Of that day made a powerful effort to
bring the Government back to what
they Ella i'm ed was the true con-
otruction of the Constitution. and de-
ny the President the power Of rcmov-
al. But they did not succeed. and
all parties have acted without question
since upon the other theory. But if
seems not to have occurred to those
eminent statesmen that though the
President could legally remove Off
ceS aud fill them with other persons.
that they could make it barren hon
or by deprlvlng the hOldes Of all COM
pensation. 1t has been reserved for
this financial generation to discover
tins new mode of curing either a de-
feet III the Constitution or a wrongful
Of it. To me, the idea
Is strange and monstrous that a man
who legally holds an office, and prop
erly performs its duties, should not
be paid because the reasons for his
were politically unsatis-
factory. L believe such a position to
b wholly indefensibIe; wrong in
one upon which no party |
can stand. In offering the motion to |
reconsider the vote passing this bill. /
happened to say that such doctrine
seemed to me to be almost reyoIu-
| have since learned that a
radical Unionist has no right to use
that word, that it belongs wholly to
persons and papers of opposite polit-
zeal procllvltles. | therefore take
leave to withdraw the word.
What is the real purpose and OBJ
ect OF this amendment? [ suppose
we may as well speak Of things as
they exist and as we all know them
% be, as tc pretend to be thinking
md talking Of something else.
4 difference has arisen between
he President and Congress in re-
alton to the proper policy to be pur-
ued III relation to the States lately in
ebelllon, who separated from US aud
ormed themselves into u separate
and between whom and
IS ilerce war ragged for four wears
'eIore we succeeded in conquering
hem. The President insists that as
he rebellion is put down and new
tate governments have been set nm
those States, they are now entitled
0 De represented in the two Houses
t Congress eff the members sent are
oyal) and to participate in all re-
poets III the administration of the {
feneral Government as if they had l
OF rebelled. Congress, on the other l
and, claim that all the legal relations t
etween these States and the General {
government having by the rebellion |
nd war consequent upon it been sew l
red, 1t rests with Congress as the S
lw-making department of the Gov 4