The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-26

usurpatlon by the Executive OF the exclusive
powers of CONGRESS, and a failure on his part
from negligence or design, to ''see the laws
faithfully executed This remedy in Congress-
may be traced back to the example of the
British House of Commons, resulting from the
great revolution, against King James II. of
1858. The only drawback to the Immediate
prosecution of this measure lies in the fears of
the weak k-kneed Republicans in Congress as to
its eXpediency; but by the 4th of March these
weak knees will be strengthened by a radical
rubbing from their constituents. We think so,
from the Northern outside pressure which has
already commenced, and because the great
strength developed by Congress in the Northern
elections of last fall resulted from the bold
stand taken by Congress against Mr. johnson,
and from his alarming attitude OF hostility to
the rightful authority of Congress. In any event
his impeachment and removal instead of pro-
duCing another civil war or a financial panic,
will practically be equivalent TO his death or
resignation, and nothing more.
Tenure of Federal Officers Power of
Removal.
From he World
When we last saw the bill to regulate the
tenure of Federal offices, which has passed the
Senate and is now pending in the House of Re.
presentatves, it provided that an officer, COM
mlssioned by consent and approval of the Senate,
should be liable to removal only for CRIME, mis-
conduct In office, lncapaclty, or disqualification.
The bill also provided that such removal should
not take place until the President had communi-
Gated to the Senate the reasons tor displacing
the officer together with all evidence in his
possession relating thereto and the Senate
should assent to the removal. During the re-
cess ofthe Senate, the President IS, by the bill,
authorized to suspend an officer, substituting an
other in his stead temporarily; but is required
within twenty days after the meeting of the
Senate to communicate mis- action and the EVIL
dence bearing thereon TO that body. If the
latter withholds its assent, then the officer re-
moved is thereby restored to his former place.
The first part of the bill, in so far as it Is an
expression by Congress of the improperly of
making removals from office except for the
causes named, may be needtul, and certainly can
DO no harm even If work of legal supereroga-
ton. But the last part of the bill, which pro-
poses TO maze Senators legal participants in the
act Of removal, ana thereby to limit and restrain
the power OF the Executive in such matters, is
clearly unconstitutional, lnasmuCh as the power
OF removal is a useful incident OF the executive
office, and absolutely necessary to the proper
discharge OF the constitutional functions of the
President.
We are very far from desiring it to be under
stood that because we deny the legal authority
OF the Senate to restrain the power of the Exc
cutiye in this matter OF removals, we approve a
reckless removal OF faithful, competent and fit
public servants on the ground of mere differ
| ences OF political opinion. Such action is not
democratic in any sense, no matter if it be
/ proved that Presidents elected as Democrats
/ have been guilty OF such conduct.
We have in a previous article alluded to
the great debate on this subject which took
.
that, President Jefferson came into power under
/ circumstances of complete revolution in poll-
tical parties, which made him almost the only
person of his views IN office His predecessor
had totally excluded the Democratic party from
public positions. Even the army was against
Mr.. Jefferson. 1t was absolutely necessary that
such a condition OF things be changed or modi-
fed, and this brought up the question of re-
moVal in all its aspects. The letters of Mr..
Jefferson, written in March, 1901, TO Govern or
Giles, to ElOridge Gerry, to the Attorney-Gene-
raj, and to others, reveal fully what was then
the view of the subject taken by the great apOs-
tie of Democracy. He declared that removals
should only be made for cause; and that proper
cause would be personal miscOnduct;" "oficial
mIsconduct;n "negligence;" ''incapaclty;r - lin
heTent vice in the appointments" partisan elec-
toneering beyond the lair exercise OF the cleo
tive tranchise;n and opposition Of heads of de.
partments to his policy. This was the Demo
cratic law Of removals.
Some twenty years after this MAY Is, 1920,
Congress legislated in respect to the term oil
Office of certain officers, and directed that all
district attorneys, collectors, navy agents, re-
ceivers of public moneys, army paymasters,
shall be appointed for four years, but ''remova.
bic from office at pleasure of the President
The object of this statute OF limitation, which
vacates every Presidential term, the great mass
of the Federal offices, was to place disOursng
officers and others every four years under
inspection and supervision as to their conduct
and accounts, so that the incompetent and de-
taulters could be detected and dropped.
In the years l825-26 the subject was again
before the Senate, and was referred to a select
/ committee OF nine, OF which Messrs Van Buren,
Benton, Macon, and White were members
which reported six bills intended to control and
regulate different branches of the public SER
vice, and limit somewhat the power of the
Executive. In one of these bills the dismissal
OF officers by the President was curtailed by
requiring the cause OF dismssion 10 be sent tC
Congress IN each case. The section was in
these words;-
That in all nominatons made by the President
to the Senate to fill vacancies Occasioned by eX
ercise OF the Presidents power to remove iron
office the TACT OF the removal shall be stated to h
Senate at the same time that the nomination 1
mace, lCith a statement of the reasons FOR Dhic
such officer mag hare been remoUea"
The report accompanying the bill was mad
by Colonel Benton on behalf of the Committee
but IT l., in an intellectual sense, one of th
written by that remarkable man The who'll
proceeding was undoubtedly intended to pre-
vent or check the Wholesale removals from
once which were being made by Preslden
Adams. The bill failed to become law, AM
Is only important as containing what Mr. Val
Buren, Colonel Benton, and other men, matur
in public life, thought upon this important sub
iect Looking back fIom our present stand
, point in 1867, we think all will admit that IN
defeat OF the bill has proved public calamity
and also that it furnishes TO the present Con
gress mode by which the public good ca
= be promoted and the Constitution pre
served in all its sanctity. II will be OF
t served that the bill of 1925 did not pu
: toward the claim, now made on behalf of tn
9 Senate, that 1t had power to peremptorIly pre-
e vent executive action. II only provided tina
: when the President removed an officer M
whose commission the assent of the Senate wa
4 required, he should accompany the nomnatio
: OF successor with statement of the reason
a Is not this the true course to be pursued tc
= day Will IL not tend to check what was n