The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-03-05

| removal. to impair The EMERGENCY OF .no
civil service; from the alleged injustice
and hardship of displacing incumbents, de-
pendent upon their official stations, Win
out sufficient consideration; from sup
posed want Of responsibility on tne pa't =, Vi
the President, and from an imag,hea de-
feet of guarantees against vicious rfes'-.
dent Who might incline to abuse the.
,owar On the other hand, an exclusive
power of removal by the President was
5Sessnded as true exposition Of the text
&C the Constitution. 1t was maintained
that there are certain causes for which per-
sons ought to be removed from Office with
out being guilty Of treason, bribery, or
malfeasance, and that the nature Of things
demands that it should be so. "Sup-
pose," it was said, a man becomes insane
by the visitation of God, and is likely to
ruin our affairs are the hands Of Govern
ment to be confined from warding OIL the
evil2 Suppose person in office not pos
sessing the talents he was judged to have
lat the time of the appointment, is the er-
ror not to be corrected Suppose ne &C
ou;re vicious habits and incurable indo-
lence, or totally neglect the duties OF MS
Office, which shall work MISCHIEF 10 the
DuDllc WclidTe, 10 luClC ho Wy
the threatened danger? Suppose ne De-
come odious and unpopular by reason oil
the measures he pursues-and TINS nc may
do without committing any positive ohence
against the law-musth he preserve ms once
despite of the popular will suppose MN
crasping for his own ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ana
the elevation Of his connections by every
means short of the treason defined by the
Constitution, hurrying your affairs 10 inc
precipice OF destruction, endangering your
domestic tranquility, Plundering you OF
the means of defence, alternating the anec-
tions of your allies, and promoting the
spirit of discord, must the tardy, tedious,
desuItory road, by way Of impeachment,
be travelled to overtake the man VINO,
barely combining himself within the letter
of the law, is employed in drawing OIL the
vital principle of the Government? The
nature of things, the great objects of So
ciety, the express objects Of the Constitution
itself. require that this thing should be
otherwise" To unite the Senate with the
President Gin the exercise of the power"
il was said, "would involve us" in the
most serious difficulty. "Suppose dis
covery of any of these events should take
| place when the Senate is not in session,
how is the remedy to be applied? The
evil could be avoided in no other way than
by the Senate sitting always" In regard
to the danger of the power being abused if
exercised by one man, it was said "that
the danger is as great with respect to the
Senate, who are assembled from various
parts of the continent, with different I'M
pressiOns and opinions; that such BODY
is more likely to misuse the power of re-
moyal than the man whom the united voice
of America calls to the presidential chair.
AS the nature OF Government requires the
power of removal, it was maintained THAT
| il should be exercised in this way by the
hand capable of exerting itself with effect,
and the power must be conferred on the
President by the Constitution as the exc
cutiye officer of the Government" Mr..
Adams, whose adverse opinion in the Fede-
rolist had been relied upon by those who
denied the exclusive power, now partlcl-
pated in the debate.
He declared that he had reviewed his
former opinions, and he summed up the
whole case as follows:
"The Constitution afiirms that the exc
cutive power is vested in the President
Are there exceptions to this proposition
Yes. there are. The Constitution says
that in appointing to Office the Senate shall
he associated with the President, unless IN
the case of inferior officers, when the law
shall otherwise direct. Have we (that is,
CongresS) right to extend this exception
| believe not. If the Constitution has IN
vested all executive power in the Presi-
dent, | return to assert that the Legisla-
ture has no right to diminish or modify
his executive authority. The question
now resolves itself into this: Is the power
of displacing an executive power ! con-
ceive that if any power whatever Is IN the
Executive, it is in the power OF appointing,
! overseeing, and controlling those who ex.
ecute the laws. If the Constitution had
not qualified the power of the President IN
appointing to office by associating the Sc
nate with him in that business, would 1t
not be clear that he would have the right,
by virtue of his executive power, to make
such appointment? Should we be autho-
rized, in defiance of that clause in the
Constitution-'th the executive power shall
be vested in the President'-to unite the
Senate with the President in the appoint
ment to office ? | conceive not. If it i
admitted that we should not be authorized
to do this, l think it may be disputed whe-
Their we have right to associate them in
removing persons from office, the one
power being as much of an executive ma
lure as the other; and the first is autho-
rized by being excepted out of the general
rule established by the Constitution in
these words: THE executive power shall
be vested in the President
| La ,rocfinn TING ahlv and pyhAnS-
lively argued, was decided by the House OF
Representatives, by vote of thirty -four to
twenty, in favor of the principle that the
executive power of removal is vested by
the Constitution in the Executive, and in
the Senate by the casting vote OF the wee
President. The question has often been
raised in subsequent times of high excite
ment, and the practice of the Government
has nevertheless conformed in all cases to
the decision thus early made.
The question was revived during the adj
ministration of President Jackson, who
made, as is we'll recollected, very large
number of removals, which were made an
occasion of close and rigorous scrutiny and
remonstrance. The subject was long and
earnestly debated in the Senate, and the
early construction of the Constitution was
nevertheless freely accepted as binding
and conclusive upon Congress.
The question came before the Supreme
Court of the United States in January,
1889, erparte Herren. 1t was declared by
the court on that occasion that the power
of removal from office was a subject much
disputed, and upon which great diversity
of opinion was entertained in the early
history of the Government. This related
however, to the power of the President to
remove officers appointed with the con-