Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1867-07-26
VETO MESSAGE.

NHt Htttubou VI 1ohtter1 W aho eVh9itSt
alton Of one more question arising under
this bill. II vests In the military com.
mander. subject only TO the approval ofthe
army Of the United Slstes, an unlimited
power to remove from Office any civil or
military officer in each OF these ten States,
and the iuriherpowcr, subject TO the same
approval, to detail or appoint any military
officer or soldier Of the United States TO
perform the duties Of the officer so removed
and Gil ell vacancies occurring in these
States by death, resignation or otherwise,
The military appointee must be required
to perform the duties Of civil Office, &C
cording 10 tho laws Of the State, and as
such required to take an oath. lie Is, for
tho time being, civil officer What is
bis character? Is he civil officer Of the
State, or civil officer Of the United States9
Where Is the Federal power under our
Constitution which authorizes his appoint
mont by any Federal officer? IL, however,
he is to be considered a civil officer Of the
United States, az his appointment and
oath would seem to indicate, whore Is TIE
authority ior his appointment by tho Con.
stiiuiiony The power of appointment Of
all officers Of the United States, ci,il or
military. whore not provided for in the
Constitution, il vested in the President
by and with tho advice and consent Of the
Senate, with this exception, that Congress
by law may vest the appointment Of such
inferior officers as IL thinks proper IN the
President alone, Ia the courts Of law, or
In the heads departments. But this bill,
II these are TO be considered inferior officers
within the meaning Of the Constitution,
does not provide for their appointment by
tho President aloue or by courts Of law,
or by heads Of departments, but vests
their appointment IN subordinate officer,
80 IL We put this question aud tx tie
character of this military uppoinioo either
way, this provision Of the bill IL equally
opposed TO the Constitution. Take the
case Of a soldier appointed TO perform the
Office Of Judge IN one Of these States. aud
M such 10 administer the proper laws oftho
State. Where u the authority TO be found
IN tho Constitution for resting Ia military
or executive officer strict judicial functions
TO be exercised under State lawg IL has
been gain and again decided by tho SUI
preme Court of tho United States that acts
OF Congress which have attempted to vest
executive powers in the judicial courts or
Ia Judges Of tho United States, are not
warranted by tho Constitution. II Con.
gross cannot elolhe Judge with merely
executive duties, how can IL clotho mn
officer or soldier of the army with judicial
duties over citizens Of the United States
who are not in the military or naval SER
vice? So, too, il has been repeatedly de-
cded that Congress cannot require State
officer, executive or judicial, to perform
any duty not enjoinod on him by a law Of
the United States. How can Congress
then confer power upon an Executive
officer Of Tho United Stnics TO perform
such duties In slatc2 If Congress could
not vest In judge Of one Of these States
any judicial authority under tho United
States, by direct onaotmcnts, how can IL
accomplish the same thing indirectly by
removing the State Judge aud putting I'm
officer Of the United States In bis placer
To mo these considerations arc conclu-
si,e OF the nncpDstiiulionality Of THE
part of the bill before me, and earnestly
commend their consideration 10 the dolib-
crate judgment Of Congress.
Within period Of less than a year the
legislation OF Congress has attempted to
strip the executive department Of Govern.
ment Of some Of lis essential powers. The
Constitution aud the oath provided in IL
deyolyed on tho President The power and
duiy 10 zoo that tho laws afo faithfully OK.
ecatod. The Constitutions In order 20
carry out this power, gives him choice Of
tho agents, aud makes them subj 10 bis
control aud supervision. Hut in tho ex.
cculien Of these laws the Constitutional
obligation upon tho President remains, but
the power TO exercise that Constitutional
duty Is elleetualy taken away. The milI-
itry commander IL "a 10 the power ct hp.
poiniment made 10 take tho place OF the
President, aud the General OF tho army To
take the place OF the Senate; aud any ut.
lompt on tho part Of the President TO
asser, bic own Constitutional power may
under prelense Of the law be met lay
official NATURALIZATION.
IL II 10 be leatel these military officers,
looking TO the authority given by these
laws rather than 10 the letter Of the Con,
stitution, will recognize no authority but
the commander OF tho district aud the
General Of The army. Ii there were no
other objections than this To the proposed
legislation, iIwonld be sufficient Whilst
] hold tho chief executive authority Of the
United States. whilst the obligation rests
on me that oil lnws are faithfully execu.
ted, can never willingly surrender that
trust or the powers given for its execution
eau never give ny assent - be made re.
sponsible for The lailblulcxoculion Of laws
and tho powers which accompany it. to
auy other executive officer, high or low.
or any number Of executive oficers. II
these executive trusts vested By The Con.
stitution IN the I'reaidcn, are 10 be taken
from him and ye',cl In subordinate oil.
Ger, the responsibility will be with Con.
gress in clothing The subordinate. with un.
constitutional power, and with the officer
who assumes lis excreise.
This interference with the constitutional
su;hority Of The Executive Department is
an evil that will inevitably sap tho founda-
tons Of our federal system. hnt il is not
the worst evil Of this legislation; it IS n
great public wrong TO take from the Prcsi.
deut powers conferred on him alone by the
Constitution, but the wfoug il more ia.
grant aud more dangerous when the row
ers so taken from the President arc
conferred on subordinate executive
officers, md especially upon military
officers. Over nearly ono-thrd Of the
States OF tho Union. military mower. rcou-