The Shasta courier., 1868-03-28
shasta COU RIER
webster on the Power of Removal.

WeDstcr OH the ROVER OF NemoFals
The following is an extract from speech
delivered by Daniel Webster in the Senate
of the United States on the 10th of February,
1885 Webster's Works, vol. w., PIP lS9,
on the power of removal from Office by the
President-which has singular applicable
ity to the great controversy now in progress
at Washington. Mr.. Webster said:
The Constitution nowhere says one word
of the power of removal from Office, except
in the case of conviction on impeachment
Wherever the power exists, therefore, except
in cases of impeachment, it must exist as a
constructive or incidental power. If il
exist in the President alone, it must exist in
him because it is attached to something else,
or result from something else, which is grant
ed to the President. There is certainly no
specific grant it is a power therefore, the
existence of which, if proved at all, is to be
proved by inference and argument. In the
only instance in which the Constitution speaks
of removal from Office, as | have already
said, it speaks of it as the exercise of.judicial
power; that is to say. it speaks of it as one
part of the judgment of the Senate. in cases
of conviction on impeachment. No other
mention is made, in the whole instrument, Of
any power of removal Whence, then, is the
power derived to the President?
1t is usually said, by those who miantain
its existence in the single hands of the Pres
ident, that the power is derived from that
clause o! the Constitution which says, The
executive power shall be vested in Presi.
dent" The power of removal, they argue,
is, in its nature, On executive power; and,
as the executive power is thus vested in the
President, the power Of removal is necessa.
rily included.
1t is true, that the Constitution declares
that the executive power shall be vested in
the President; but the first question which
then arises is, What is erecutire pouer p
What is the degree, and lckdt are tie Hmita-
tons Executive power is not a thing so
well known, and 50 accurately defined, as
that the written constitution of limited
government can be supposed to have confer
red it in the lump. What is executive
power? What are the boundaries What
model or example had the trainers of the Con.
stitution in their minds, when they spoke of
executive powerY Did they mean execu,
tive power as known in England. or as
known in France, or as known in Russia ?
Did they take it as defined bv Montesouieu.
by Buramaqui, or by De Loime? All
these differ from one another as to the extent
of the executive power of government What
then was intended by " executive power ?''
Now, Sir. think it perfectly plain and man.
ifest. that, although the trainers of the Con
stitution meant to confer executive power on
the President, yet they meant to define and
limit that power. and to confer no more than
they did thus define and limit. When they
said it shall be vested in a President, they
meant that one magistrate, TO be called a
President, shall hold the executive authority /:
but they mean, further, that he shall hold
this authority according to the grants and
limitations of the Constitution itself.
They did not intend certainly, a sweeping
gift Of prerogatiye. They did not intend to
grant to the President, whatever might be
construed. or supposed, or imagined to be
meant no such thing is, that, Immediately
after using these general words, they pro
ceed specifically to enumerate his several
distinct and particular authorities: to fix
and define them; to give the Senate an es
sential control over the exercise of some of
them. and to leave others uncontrolled. By
the executive power conferred on the Presif
dent, the Constitution means no more than
that portion which itself creates. and which
it qualities, limits, and circumscribes
A general survey of the frame of the Con
stitution will satisfy us of this That instru-
ment goes all along upon the idea of dividing
the powers of government, So far as pract
cable, into three great departments. 1t de-
scribes the powers and duties of these de
partments in an article allotted 70 each. A,
first in Importance and dignity, it begins
with the legislative department. The first
article of the Constitution, therefore. com.
mences with the declaration, that "all leg
islative power herein granted shall be vested
in Congress Of the United States, which
shall consist of Senate and House of Rep
resentatives." The article goes on to pre-.
scribe the manner in which Congress is to
be constituted and organized, and then pro
ceeds to ehumerate, specifically, the po1cers
intended to be granted and adds the gen.
eral clause, confering such authority as NAV
be necessary to carry granted powers into
effect. Now, Sir. no man doubts that this
Is limited legislature that it possesses no
powers bot such as are granted bv EXPRESS
words or necessary implication and that it
would be quite preposterous to insist that
Congress possesses any particular legislative
powers, merely because it is, in its nature. n
legislative body. if no grant can be found for
it in the Constitution itself.
Then, comes. Sir, the second article
creating "a executive power; and IL decla ras
that 's s.he executive power shall be vested in
President of the United States.n Aftsr
providing for the mode of choosing him. II
Immediately proceeds to enumerate. snec;
fically, the powers which he shall possess and
exercise. and the duties which he shall ner.
form. ! consider the language of this article
therefore, precisely analogous to that in
which the legislature is created; that is 10
say, understand the Consultation as saving
that "the executive power herein qran;ed
shall be vested in President of the United
States!'Eysas# Il .FIn9 bale
In like manner, the third article. or that
which IS intended to arrange the judicial
system, begins by declaring that 'the
judicial. power of the United States shall be
vested in one Supreme Court. and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress NAV, from
time to time, Ordain and establish.D' But
these general words do not show ,chdt erteu,