Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1867-12-14
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.
CONTINUED.

most he. can 90 Is 10 cOhPllip 10 TIC Scnalc,
and ask tho privilege of supplying his place
with better man, If the Senate bc regard
cd as personally or politically hostile to the
President, it is natural, and not altogether un
reasonable, for tho officer to expect that it will
take his part as far as possible, restore him to
his place, and give him triumph over his
Executive superior. Tho officer has other
chances of impunity arising from accidental
defects of evidence, the mode of Investigating
it, and the secrecy Of the hearing. 1t is not
wonderful that official mafeasance should be.
come bold in proportion as tho dclinqucnts
learn to think themselves safe. am entirely
persuaded that undor such rule the Prcsi
dent cannot perform the great duty assigned
to him of seeing the laws faithfully executed
aud chat it disablcs him most especially from
enforcing that rigid accountability which is
necessary to the due execution OF the revenue
laws
The Constitution invest, the President with
authority to decide whether removal should
be made in any given case; T; the act Of Con
grcss declares, IN substance, that he shall only
accuse such as he supposcs to be unworthy Of
their trust. The constitution makes him sole
judge in the premises but the statute takes
away his jurisdiction, transfers it to the Sen
ate, and leaves him nothing but the olious
prosecutor. The prosecution is to be con.
Quoted before tribunal whose members are
not, like him, responsible to the whole people,
but to separate constituent bodies, and who
may hear his accusation with great disfavor.
The Senate is absolutely without any known
standard of decision applicable to such case.
Its Judgment cannot be anticipated, for it is
not governed by any rule. The law docs not
define what shall be deemed good cause for
removal. 1t is possible even to conjecture
what may or may not be so considered by the
Senate. The nature Of the subject forbids
clear proof If the charge be incaracity,
what evidence will support it? Fidelity to
the constitution may be understood or misun-
dcrstood in thousand different ways. aud by
violent party men, in violent party times un.
faithfuncss to the constitution NAV even come
to be considered meritorious II: tho officer
be accused of dishonesty, how Shall il hc
made out Will it be infrrrcd from acts un.
connected with public duty, from private his
tory. or from general reputation Or must
the President await Tic commission ot an ac
tua nlisdcmcnnor in office ? Shall hc. il, the
meantime risk the character and interest Of
the nation in The hands Of nrcn 10 whom he
cannot give his confidence? Must he Tor.
bear his complaint until the mischief is done
and cannot De prevented? If his zeal in The
public service should impcl him to anticipate
the overt act, must he move at the peril of
beng tried himself for the offence Of SANDER
lnS his subordinate? In the present crcum-
stances of the country, some one must be held
responsible for Official delinquency Of every
kind. 1t is extremely difficult to saw where
'haS responsibility should he thrown, if it be
not lett where it has been placed by the cor.
st'tutlon. But all just men will admit that
the PRESIDENT ought to he entirely relieved
from such responsibility, if he cannot meet
it by reason of restrictions placed by law up
on his action.
The unrestricted power of removal from
office is very great one to be trusted G, en-
to magistrate chosen by the general suffrage
of the whole people, and accountable directly
to them for his acts. It is undoubtedly liable
to abuse, and at some periods of our history,
perhaps, has been abused If it be thought
desirable and constitutional that i shon'd be
so limited as to make the President merely
common intormcr against other public agents,
ne should al least be permitted to act in that
capacity ueforc some open tribunal indcpcn
dent of party politics, ready to investigate the
merits OF every case, furnished with the means
of taking evidence, and bound to decide ac
cordlng to established rules. This would
guarantee the safety Of the accuscr when he
acts in good faith, and at the same time Sc
cure the rights of the other party. speak.
of course, with all proper respect for the pres
ent Senate, but it does not seem to me that
any legislative body can be so constituted as
to insure its fitness for these functions.
1t is not the theory of this Government
that public Offices arc the property of those
who hold them. They are given merely as a
trust for the public benefit, sometimes for a
ixed period, sometimes during good behavior
but generally they arc liable to be terminated
at the pleasure of the appointing power, which
represents the collective majesty and speaks
tho will of the people. The forced retention
IN Office Of a single dishonest person may
work great injury to tho public interests.
The danger to the public service comes not
from the power to rcmovc, but from the power
to appoint. Therefore it was that the trainers
OF the constitution left the power of removal
unrestricted, while they gave the Senate
right to reject all appointments which, in it's
opinion, were not fit to be made a little re.
fection on this subject will probably satisfy
all who have the good of the country at heart
that our best course is to take the constitution
for our guido, walk in the path marked out
by the founders of the Republic, and obey
the rules made sacred by tho observance Of
our great predecessors.