The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-05-21

hlling Of vacancies which exist while thu s.r.
ate 10 in session, and whore there 4 An N.
portunity TO submit nominations for thar 81.
vice and consent, and this is omitted Of the
nomination is rejected by the senate, and the
same person reappointed after the senate al. |
)ourns. II the amendment went no further
than this could very eheerfully support 1t,
1of the language of the constitution 10 clear
tnas tho presldents power of appointment
without tho advice and consent of the senate
y connned to yacanciss that happen during
But the amendment has . SCOPE and mean
ing far beyond this. The power of the presi.
dent to fill ell vacancies that happen during
the recess Of the senate is not denied. But
this amendment declares that unless the va
cancies happen in . particular way the per.
son appointed shall receive no salary or COM
pensation until confirmed BY the senate.
have not examined or considered wheth-
81 the exceptions cover every possible occa-
sion Of vacancy which can occur, except 70.
movals for other reasons than Tor misconduct
or malfeasance in Office.
This is the class of cases which the amend
ment 10 designed to reach, and think its
distinguished mover will not deny that the
main object and purpose of the amendment
lie to declare that if the president makes 70.
movals from Office from mere political reas
ons. and thus causes vacancies during the re-
recess of the senate, the persons he appoints
to fill them shall receive NO payment for their
services in Office until confirmed by the SEN
ate. In such cases the real question is not
on the power of the president 70 fill Q vacan-
cy, but as to his power to thus make vacan-
cy. 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 neces-
| sary.
The senator from Missouri. Mr.. Hender-
| con with his usual straightforwardness and
| frankness. boldly avows that, in his judge
| ment, the presidents power of removal in
| such cases 10 commensurate only with his
| power of appointment; and that the consent
of the senate 10 rs necessary to the removal
| as to the appointments. The able and learn
| ed argument of the senator went far towards
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.. Fessendenl
declared his willingness to support the
| amendment, except for the clause requiring
the cause of removal to be reported to the
senate; but he admitted the power of tie
president under the constitution to make re-
| movals without the consent of the senate
In urging the necessity of the amendment.
however. he dwels wholly upon the abuse of
| the appointing power, by making appoint
| ments after the adjournment of the senate,
which have been made and submitted to the
| senate while in session. / should be doing
that senator great injustice to suppose that
he did not fully understand that the matter
| aimed at was also q different and broader
one. Other senators have fought shy upon
| this questonyand have argued In favor Of the
4 klu 60r hA
| of removal, but under protestation, as a spe-
| cial pleader would SAY, that they do not ad-
NIT it.
| They have said, oonceding that he has the
| power of removal, we have the power to Fay
| whether his new appointees shall receive the
| salaries and compensations provided by law
| for those holding the Offices. So We have the
power to refuse any appropriations to pay the
salary of the president, or to carry xny and
every departments of the government, and
thus destroy it. Although we may have sue b
use in the last resort, or prevent usurpasion
| or the destruction of the liberties of the PEG
pie.
| But if we believe that the president has not
| the legal and constitutional power of removal,
why not say SO directly? 1t we are prepar
ed to adopt the doctrine of the senator from
Missouri, why not do it in as open and manly
a way as he desires it After a uniform exer
else of he power by every administration
since the formation of the constitution, to
some extent, although for q considerable time
doubted and questioned, and after at least &c
years of undoubsed and unqusstioned use,
by sweeping change of political appoint
menss with every political change of admin.
istration. and by both political parties, if we
design now to declare a different rule, and
| change the whole action of the government
| in this respect, does IT bshoove as to do t in
the indirect and sinister way this amendment
proposes
| have asked If that was the design, to deny
to the president the power to remove. why mo-
declare 90, and make the needful and proper
Legislation on the subject, and I have been
| told that we could not pass such law. Why
cause majority of this body, or of both
that be SO, il il exactly open and honest deal
ing to undertake to bolster up this amend
ment by affecting to believe the president
transcends his power by making such remov
tails and new appointments must be allow
ed to say that it is mode of accomplishing
a purpose that does not commend itself Il
me.
| But notwithstanding the argument in sup
port of the amendment has been mainly that
such political changes were beyond the iega
and constitutional power of the presidential
amendment upon its face comedies ii. and pro
vides that those appointed to fill vacancies
caused By removals for misconduct In ofhc.
shall be excepted from this prohibitian Of
payment. 1t cannot be said that he has thu
power of removal for one cause. and has mo-
for another. If by the constitution he ha
the power of removal at all, of necessity h'
must be the sole and conclusive judge of the
cause and necessity of removal. The validl
ty or legality of the appointment of the off
Ger appointed to fill such a vacancy could NO
be inquired into by going back to inquire fol
what cause his predecessor was removed. Ii
the exhaustive discussions which this subj ec
received from the eminent statesmen of th'
early days of the government, it was never
suggested but that the president was the on
ly Judge of the cause of removal. if he pos
sessed the power in any case. This amend
ment virtually breaches wholly new doc
trine. 1t comedies the power of removal by
the president, but assumes that we may &c
back behind that, and inquire into the rea.
sons, for the purpose of determining whether
the new aupoixtee shall have nav IL ia cor