Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1868-03-12

connecting the Senate with the Pres
ident, in removing from Office"
George Clymer, of Pennsylvania, a
signer of the Constitution, said
off the President is Invested of this
power, his responsibility is DESTROYED
you prevent his efficiency, and disable
him from affording that security 90
the people which the Constitution
contemplates. What use will it be of,
to call the citizens of the Union to-
gother every four years toobtain a
purified choice of representative, if
he is to be mere cyphor to the Gov
ernment? The executive must act by
others; but you reduce him to mere
shadow, when you control both the
power of appointment and removal.
If you take away the latter power,
he ought TO resign the power of super
intending and directing the executive
part of government into the hands of
the Senate at once, and then we be-
come dangerous aristooracy, or shall
be more destitute of energy than any
government on earth. These being
my sentiments, wish the clause to
stand as a legislative declaration that
the power of removal is constitution
ally vested in the President"
Mr.. Baldwin, another signer of the
Constitution, said:
"The Senate must concur with the
President in making appointments, but
with respect TO the removal they are
not associated no such clause is in
the Constitution, and therefore should
conclude that the convention did not
choose they should have the power"
Judges Kent and Story, in com
menting upon the Constitution, have
both assented to and affirmed this doc
trine, and no more valuable authority
can be found.
In our own Supreme Court the
same question has been iudiciaIly set
tied in the case of Lehman VS. Suth-
erland, Sd Serg. and Rawle las. The
Court says: "The Constitution is ST.
lent as to the removal of officers, vet
it has been generally supposed that
the power of removal rested with the
Governor, except in those cases where
the tenure was during good behavior" :"
clearly recognizing the principle that
the power of removal was incident to
the power Of appointment. And what
an anomaly it would be, and how it
would shock our sense of propriety to
affirm that the Secretary of State of
our Commonwealth could force him
self upon the Governor in defiance of
his express wish for his removal.
In the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, in 18th Peters 259, it is
stated by the Court that-"This pow
er of removal from office was a snb-
ect much disputed, and upon which a
great diversity of opinion was enter
tanned in the early history of the Gov
ernment. This related, however, to
the power of the President TO remove
officers appointed with the concur
renee Of the Senate and the great
question was whether the removal was
to be by the President alone or with
the concurrence of the Senate, both
constituting the appointing power. No
one denied the power Of the President
and Senate, jointly, to remove, when
the tenure of the office was not fixed
by the Constitution, which was full
recognition of the principle that the
power of removal was incident to the
power of appointment. But it was
very early adopted, as the practical
construction of the Constitution, that
this power was vested in the Presi-
dent alone. And such would appear
to have been the legislative construc-
tion of the Constitution"
Thus we have the Constitutional
provision
"The Executive power shall be yes
ted in a President of the United States
of America !" its recognition by an
act Of Congress cotemporaneous with
the Constitution, as an executive pow
er, and vested in the President the
universal practice Of the Government
ever since its formation; the sanction
of Madison, Amcs, Clymer, Baldwin,
Story and Kent the express ruling
of the Supreme Court IN the case in
18th Peters, 253 the endorsement of
the doctrine by our own Supreme
Court, as well as the necessary impli-
cation and the fitness Of the thing, to
sustain us in the position that the
potoer Of removal irds an erecutiUe poW-
er and rested in the President alone.
Such being tho condition of the law, 4,
Congress sees fit TO pass the Tenure
of Office law, by which the President
is forbidden TO remove his cabinet
officers without consent of the Senate
The President vetoed the bill and dis
tinctly asserted that il was not in
accordance with the Constitution, and
he sends to them many of the authori-
ties have just cited, and il is said
that Mr.. Stanton himself furnished
the material for that veto message
Disregarding the veto and the argu-
ment Of unc9nstitutionality, Congress
passes the bill over theveto. Itsurely
will no. be contended that this repas-
sage of the bill made it constitutional
ifit were not so before. Its rcpassage
could do no more than give it the
form and authority oflaw 1t became
a law binding upon all, unless it con
fiicted with the organic law, and if it
do so conflict it was not Of binding
force and effect. 1t did not become
the supreme ldio Of the land if it con
traveDed the constitutional preroga-
tives Of the President, for only those
laws that are passed in pursuance of
the Constitution become tho supreme
law of the land. "This Constitution,