The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-04

WHENCE Is TIE rowEa CLAIMED DERIVED.
For this most stupendous and unlimited
the respondent cites no hne ~
adduces no word Of constitutional etc., ~
indeed he could not. for the only 1917
Of removal from Office in the Cone
al . part OF the judgment IN case o. y. ~.
ment, and the only power OF aGs.s-x.1
By nomination to the senate = $500 49,
appointed by their adsice and csess 49,
= ~. prss;dens when the Senate tsSeeih
.s;nn Whence then does the respondent
=. II sSSver claim " havo DERIVED tess po.-
= I rive him the benefit Of his own words,
.tb.t il - gracefully settled BY The hrss
Congress Of the United States Again, !
eiye him the benefit Of hi1ow phnses - -
forth in hin message 70 tia Senate, Qn the "a
Of March, 1887, made part q hin answer;
s.the question was decided By the House OF
Representatives by vote Of "a to 20, I'm this,
however, ne is mistakenly. and in the Sena,e
by the casting vote Of the Vice President
n the same answer he admits that before NO
undertook the exercise of this most Danger,
ouenl snvsndous~ poxesr a1eF yeeSss q |
sted Snd e AuinshOn Sfths Co4seSuen ~
The peopfe ifsine under II, another GO
hsa decided that there Was no sucn nnim'tso
nover. So that he admits that this tremeno-
nns power which he claims from the ieeisia-
tive construction Of one Congress ~ vote
Of "a 10 20 in the House. and TIE vote 10 the
Senate. has been denied BY another house OF
more Than three times the su!bef 81 mem-
hers by vote Of 1873 TO 81; and by : Senate
of more than double the number OF Senstors
nv a vote of SO to 10, and this too after he
had presented to them all the arguments 10
ita favor that he could find to Sustain his
claim Of power.
If he derives this power from the practical
settlement Of one Congress. OF legislative
construction Of tho Constitutional prosihons,
why NAV not such : construction be As prActi-
caliy settled more anthoritatively BY the great
er unanmity of another Congress-yea, as We
shall see, Of many other CongressesY
The syent question. however, still returns
mon us-vhencs comes this power p how
derived or conferred Is il Unlimited and
unrestrained? ilIimitable and understandable,
a the President claims il to be?
II presenting this topic it will be my dnty,
and shall attsmpt to do nothing more. than
to state the propositions OF law ana the aa-
thori,ies to support them 30 far as they may
como TO my knowledge. leaving the argument
and Illustrations Of the quesiion to be extend
ed in the close by ADLER and better hands
If 81 power Of removal in the Executive Is
found at all in the Constitution, It Is admitted
to be an implied one. either from the power
Of appointment, or because .'the executive
power is invested in the President"
PRESIDENTS POWER LIMITED
Has the executive power granted by the
Constitution BY these words any limitations
Does the Constitution invest the President
with all executive power, prerogatges, priv
leges, and immunrties enjoyed by executive
officers Of other countries-Kings and tmper
ors-without limitation? IF SO. them the Con-
stitution has been much more liberal in grant.
ing powers to the Executive than to the Leg
islative branch Of the government, as that has
only s.all legislative powers herein granted
i which shall be vested in the Congress- Of the
United States" not all uncontrollable hgis-
lative powers, ss there are many limitations
upon that power as exercised by the Psrlia-
ment Of England. for example. soIihsre are
many executive powers expressly limited III
the Constitution, such as declaring war, max
ing rules and regulations Tor the government
Of the army and navy. and coming money.
As some executive powers are limited by
the Constitution itself, is it not clear that the
words ''the executive power is vested IN the
President" do not confer on him all exeen-
tive powers. but must be construed with ref
|erence to other constitutional provisions
grauting or regulating specific powets? The
executive power Of appointment i clearly
limited BY the words The shall nominate and
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate shall appoint ambassadors,
and all other officers of the United States
whose appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established
| By law
Is il not, therefore, more in accordance
| with the theory of the Constitution 10 imply
the power of removal from the power OF mp
pointment, restrained by like limitations. than
| to imply it solely - . prerogative Of execu-
| tive power and therefore ilimltable and On
controllsble? Have the people anywhere else
10 the Constitution granted illimitable and un-
controllable powers either to the executive or
any other branch of the Government? Isnot
the whole power of Government one Of
checks, balances and limitations? Is it to be
believed that our fathers just escauing from
the expressions OF monarchical power, and
| so dreading II that they feared the very name
Of king, gave this more than kingly power to
the Executive, ilIimitable and uncomfortable,
and that, too, By implication merely?
Upon this point our proposition is, that the
Senate being in session, and an fiice, not an
inferior one, within the terms Of the Consti
tuition being filed, the President hiss The i'm
piled power of inaugurating the removal only
by the nomination of . successOr tolth Sep
ate, which, when consented 10, works the full
removal and supersededs of the incumbent.
Such has been, it is believed, the practice OF
the Government from the beginning, down to
the act about which we are inquiring. Ger
tain tits, that Mr.. Webster, in the Senate in
d,w.tL sctsh
the following language:
nIf one man be Secretary Of State, and
another be appointed. the FIRST goes out by
the mere force Of the appointments Of The
other, without anv previous act of removal
whatever. And this is the p.acfice Of the
Government, and has been from lhe first In
all the removals which have been made they
have generally been effected simply by ma
king other appointments. cannot find
case 70 the contrary There is no such thing
~ any distinct official act Of removal have
looked into the practice, and caused Enquiries
TO be made in the departments. and lido not
learn that any such proceeding il known rs
an entry or record of the removal OF an Of
fcer from Office, and the President would
only act in such cases by causing some proper
record or entry TO be made as proof of the
fact OF removal. | an aware that there have
Dee0 SOME cases IN winch nOtlc6 DRS Deeu
sent to persons in Office that their services
are or will be, after given dsy, dispensed
with. These Are usually cases in which the
object is, NOT to inform the incumbent that
he 10 removed, but to tell him ihat'a success
sor either il. or by day named will be- ap-
pointed. Ii there be any instances in which
such notice is given, without express refer
ence to the appointment of successor. they
are few and even Ia these such reference
must be implied, because in no case is there
any distinct official act of removal, as | can
End, unconnected with the act OF appoint
ment.
This would seem to reconcile oil the pro-
visions Of the Constitution, the right OF re-
moval being in the President, to be executed
sub modo, as is the power OF appointment,
the appointment, when contaminated, ma
king the removal
This power was deliberately debated in the
FIRST Congress upon the bills establishing
Department Of Foreign Affairs and the War
Department. The debate arose on the mo-
ton, in Committee Of the Whole, to strike
ont, after the title Of the officer, the words
to be removable from Office BY the Presi
dent Of the United States" II was four
days discussed in Committee Of the Whole in
the House, and the clause retained by a vote
Of ~ yeas to "a nays which seemed to estab-
lish the power of removal ~ either BY q leg
islative grant Of construction Of The Constr
tuition. But the triumph Of its friends vas
shost-lived, for when the bill came up in the
House, Mr. Benson moved TO amend il By al
tering the second section of the bill, so ~ 10