Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1866-05-11

Is 1868 when Congress and the President
Oincoln) were in entire harmony, Congress i'm
posed condition in an appropriation bin in re-
spect to certain Offices substantially ike the fol-
lowing, which has just been adopted by the Senate .
80 No person exercising or performing the duties
OF any office, which by law is required 10 be filed
by the advice and consent OF the Senate shall be-
fore his confirmation by the Senate receive any
salary OF compensation for bis services. unless he
be commissioned by the President 20 iil up va
cancy occurring by reason Of death, resignation,
or expiration OF term Of office during the recess
OF the Senate, and since It's LAST Adjournment, or
removal for acts done in violation OF the duties Of
his office, the case and cause Of removal % be re-
ported 70 the Senate AT ITS next session
After debate by Messrs Howe aud Guthrie, the
amendment was adopted by the following vote
Yeas-Messrs Clark Conness. Cresswell, Har-
ris. Henderson, Howard. Howe, Krkwool, Nor
rill Nye, Poland. Pomeroy. Ramsey, Sprague,
Sumner, Trumbull Wade, Williams, and Wilson
-i9.
Nays-Messrs Davis, Dixon, Dooittle ressen-
den Guthrie, johnson. Morgan. Salisbury, Sher-
man, Van Winkle. and Willey-ll.
Since writing the above, we ind the following
in the proceedings of May 8, which indicates that
there may be something wrong IN the amendment,
though it is not apparent to US;
The post office appropriation bill was recalled
from the House. Mr. Poland entered motion to
reconsider the vote by which it was passed. He
looked upon the amendment put upon that bill as
revolutionary. Congress might as well refuse to
appropriate money 20 pay the salary OF the Pres-
dent TO refuse to pay the salaries OF officers ap
pointed by the President. He wished his motion
10 lay on the table until the bill now in course Of
preparation in relation TO appointments was pre-
sented to the Senate.
The consideration Of the motion was fixed for
Monday next
In looking again at the provision in the Post
Office bill, against paying officers in certain cases
who have not been confirmed by the Senate. we
notice noyel feature in the last clause, which re-
quires the President 10 report to the Senate the
cases and causes Of removal. This is hardly
proper II may be well for the President to do il,
certainly in important cases and it may be well,
too for the Senate to inform the President Of its
reasons for refusing TO confirm nominations. Con-
(idential and friendly communications of this sort
may not be OBJECTIONABLE but We think neither
the President nor the Senate can properly demand
il. Each doubtless should act independently, and
take the responsibility. So far, then. the propo-
sition of the Senate is faulty, and we hope it will
be amended. We must dissent from the unqual-
/ fled remark attributed to Senator Poland. that
Congress may as well refuse TO pay the President
as an officer appointed by binl. Not ii the officer
has been iiieqolig appointed. which is really the
/ question before the Senate llegalty has always
been, and always should be, a good reason for
refusing an appropriation. We do not think Sem
stor Poland will dissent from that.