Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1866-05-18
Senator Poland's Speech.

OIilce Appropriation bill, Senator
Poland said:
L voted for the amendment to this
bill, and for the bill itself. with great
hesitation, and with the design, if
could not become better satisfied with
it, to move to have it reconsidered.-
Subsequent reflection satisfied ME that
the amendment ought not to be adopt
ed and | therefore made the motion to
reconsider.
The amendment proposed by the
Senator from Illinois to this bill is
very general and comprehensive in its
terms, and denies any payment Of
salary or compensation to officers
appointed by the President before
confirmation by the Senate, unless ap-
pointed to fill vacancies happening
during the recess of the Senate by
death, resignation, expiration of term,
or removal for official misconduct.
1t is said that one of the mischiefs
which this amendment is designed to
prevent is t he filling of vacancies
which exist while the Senate is in SEES
sion, and where there is an Opportu-
nifty to submit nominations for their
advice and consent, and this is omit
ted, or the nomination is rejected by
the Senate, and the same person reap
pointed after the Senate adjourns. IF
the amendment went no further than
this could very cheerfully support
1t, for the language Of the Constitution
Is clear that the Presidents power of
appointment without the advice and
consent Of the Senate is confined to
vacancies that happen during the re-
cess of the Senate.
But the amendment ha5 a scoDe and
meaning far beyond this. The DOW
Ell of the President to fill vacancies
that happen during the recess of the
senate is not denied. But TIN is
amendment declares that unless the
vacancies happen in a particular way.
the person appointed shall receive no
salary or compensation until confirm
ed by the Senate.
have not examined or considered
whether the exceptions cover every
possible occasion Of vacancy which
can occur, except removals for other
reasons than for misconduct or malfea-
sance in Office.
This is the class Of cases which the
amendment is designed to reach, and
| think its distinguished mover will
not deny that the main object and
purpose OF the amendment is to de-
clare that if the President makes re-
movalS from office for mere political
reasons and thus causes vacancies
during the recess of the Senate. the
person he appoints to fill 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 fill
a vacancy. but as to his power to
thus make a vacancy. This brings up
the Old question of the power of the
President to remove from office per-
sons to whose original appointment
the advice and consent of the Senate
was necessary.
The Senator from Missouri Mr..
Henderson, with his usual straight
forwardness, boldly avows that in his
Judgment the Presidents power of re-
moval in such cases is commensurate
only with his power of appointment;
and that the consent of the Senate is
as necessary to the removal as to the |
appointment. The able and learned
argument Of the Senator went far to-
ward convincing me that if the question
could now be considered an open one.
that was the true construction of the
Constitution.
The Senator from Maine + Mr.. Fes-
sender declared his willingness to
support the amendment, except for the
clause requiring the cause of remov-
al to be reported to the Senate; but
he admitted the power of the Presi-
dent under the Constitution to make
removals without the consent of the
Senate. In urging its necessity. how
ever, he dwolt wholly upon the abuse
Of the appointing power, by making
appointments after the adjournment ,
Of the Senate, which might have been
made and submitted to the Senate !
while In session. | should be doing f
hat Senator great injustice to sup t
pose that he did not fully understand :
hat the matter aimed at was altooetb- !
er different and broader one. Other +
have fought shy upon this
question, and have argued in favor of |
ne amendment, not exactly denying $
he power OF removal, but under pro. {
estatlon, as a special pleader would n
Jay, they do not admit it. They have b
and, conceding that he has the power /
u removal, we have the power to say {
whether his new appointees shall re- q
eve the salaries and compensations o
provided by law for those holdino !.
he offices. So we have the power to q
etuse any appropriations to pay the Il
alary of the President, or to carry -
n any and every department of the q
Government, and thus destroy it .
although we may have such power it o
one which can only be justified in q
Sc IN the last resort, to prevent usurp-
ton or the destruction of the liber- o.
les of the people. = 2
But If we believe that the President Of
as not the legal and constitutional m
over OF removal, why not saw SO di- ii
ectly? If we are prepared to adopt C
ne doctrine of the Senator from Mis-.
ouri, why not do it in as open and bf
lanly way as he declares it? AZ %
II unborn exercise of the power Inv O.,
very Administration since the form 81 Fl
ION nf tho ~