The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-03-05
CONGRESS ON SATURDAY.
vetoes OF the Tenure OF once
nnd Military Government
BiIls.BOth Bills Passed.

{, The veto messages were sent into tn
Senate and House ofsRepresentative
by the President on Saturday. Tn
first related to the Tenure Of Office Bill
the second, to the Military Government
Bill, as it is generally called, or "Al
Act for the more efficient government o
the rebel States,rY Both bills, were
promptly passed, notwithstanding the
objections Of the President. 'i'.'
TENURE OF OFFICE BILL.
OF the Tenure of Office Bill Mr.. JOHN
son declares that "in effect it provides
that the President shall not remove from
their places any of the civil officers
whose terms Of service are not limited
Ly law, without the advice and consent
Of tho Senate of the United States. The
hill in this respect conflicts, in my judg-
ment, with the Constitution Of the
United States"
THE POWER OF REMOVAL. '.-
The principle that the power Of re-
moval resides in the President, he as
serts, is sanctioned by judicial decisions
and by the practice of the Legislative
and Executive Departments. A ques-
tion involving this principle arose in
the House OF Representatives on the
10th of June, 17s9. A bill was before
the House to establish department of
foreign affairs, and providing that the
head of the same should be receivable
from Office by the President of the
United States" Upon a motion to
strike out this letter provision, q dis
cussion arose which was conducted
with great vigor and ability: .-,.
at was insisted that the President
eould not c0nstitutiOnally exercise the
power of removal Exclusive of the
Senate; that the Federalists SO inter
preted the Constitution who argued for
its adoption by the several States; that
the Constitution had nowhere given the
President the power of removal, either
expressly or by strong implications; but
on the contrary, had distinctly provided
for removal from office by impeach-
ment only, a construction which denied
the power of removal by the arguments
given, from the danger of the abuse OF
power, from the supposed tendency OF
the exposure of public officers to CO.
PRECIOUS removal to impair the cfficien-
cy of the civil service, from the alleged
injustice and partisanship of displaeing
ipcumbents dependent OH their official
s. ations without sufficient cOnsidera-
ton, from supposed want of irrespon-
sibility OH the part of the President,
and from an imagined defect OF the
guarantees, against which the Presi-
dent might incline to abuse the power. .
On the other hand the exclusive power
of removal by the President was de-
Tended as the,true exposition of the Con-
stitution. Causes other than treason,
bribery or malfeasance" might arise to
Justify removal. Insanity, or other
form of mental iLcapacity, vice, ihdo-
lence and such neglect Of duty as would
damage the public interests, were named
as sufficient reasons for executive in
reference. Unpopular conduct of an
incumbent without positive violation
of the law, corrupt self-aggrandizement,
the elevation of connections, such man.
agement of public affairs as would
amount 20 treason, by endangering do
mestic tranquility, robbing the people
of means OF defense, alternating allies,
and promoting discOrd, were all cited
as causes requiring the immediate re-
moval of the offender, and in such cases
to wait for the tardy actios of Senate,
not, perhaps, in session at time when
their cooperation would be needed
would be disastrous in the extreme.
MADIsON's AGREEMENT.
Mr.. MADISON summed up the whole
case as follows:
The Constitution affirms that the eX-
ecutive power is vested in the President:
Are there exceptions to this propOsitionf
Yes. there are. The Constitution says
that in appointing to office, the Senate
shall be associated with the President,
unless in the case of inferior officers,
when the law shall otherwise direct.
Have we (that is the Congress of the
United States) right to extend this
exceptionf l believe not. If the Con-
stitntion has invested all executive
power in the President, venture to AS
sert that the Legislature has no right to
diminish or modify his executive au-
thority. The question now resolves
itself into this--is the power OF dis
placing au executive power. Whatever
is in the executive, 1t is in the power
of appointing, overseeing and control
ling those who execute the laws. III tho
Constitution had not qualified the pow
er of the President in appointing to
office by associating the Senate with
him in that business, wOuld it not be
clear that he would have the right, by
virtue of his executive power, to MAKE
such appointmentsi Should we be au-
thorized, i'm defiance of that clause in
the Constitution, "the Executive power
shall be vested in the President" to
mite the Senate with the President in
the appOlutuuCuIS " OhhSS'
not. fit is admitted that we should
not be authorized, then we have no
right-to associate them in removing
persons from office, the one power being
as much Of oil executive nature as the
other, and the first one is authorized by
being excepted ont Of the general rule
established by the Constitution, In
these words: The Executive power
shall be vested in the President" The
question thus ably and exhaustively
argued was decided by the House Of
Representatives by o vote of "a to 20 in
favor of the principle, that the Execu'
tive power Of removal is vested by the
| Consultation in the Executive, and the
Senate by the casting vote of the Vice
President.
ANOTHER DECISION.
The question again arose during JACK
SONS administration: "The subject wa,
long and earnestly debated in the Sen
ate, and tho early construction Of th'
Constitution was nevertheless freely &C
l~>.~k~.l a. Ia; a, a;nv and conclnSiva unoy