Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1868-03-04

gress OF 1867, to wit The concurrence OF the sen
ate is can excellent check upon a spirit Of favor
itism in the President" to prevent the appoint
mens Of unfit characters from State prejudice, from
family connection, from personal attachment, or }
from view to popularity"-or persons "possess-' !
ing The necessary -iasigaLfcaaee and pliapcg to !
render them the obsequious instruments of his
pleasure. Lorenzo Thomas foreseenll to ICON
tribute to the stability Of the administrationn-to
"avoii violent or general revelation in the Of
Gces,n aud to give " steady administration" BE
it remembered that this is the first contemporary
exposition, BY leading trainers Of the Constitution,
and that this vas tie undertaking by he nation
iohen the Constitution oas adopted. ..,,J
The passage we have quoted was written by
Hamilton, who was pre-emnently the advocate of
strong executive-in fact so far towards the point
Of royal prcrogatives that in that day he was CALI
ed nonarchist This admission Of the check Of
the Senate upon an executive prerogatiye was in
him therefore very significant; but il also had the
assent Of Jay and Madison--of the latter Presi-
dent johnson himself contested in his veto Of the
Office tenure act We repeat. therefore, that it is
the earliest exposition Of the Constitution the
power Of removal, by three men who were most
eminent among It's trainers, and the very exposi-
ton on which the nation accepted and adopted
tho Constitution, 1t ailirms the Constitutional
power of the Senate to act upon removals as well
as upon appointments, and the act Of 1867 is in
conformity with it. ......l..
Under the circumstances, this seems to be the
fairest and most authoritative exposition of the
Constitution 1t was the deliberate judgment Of
able men, who were then free from prejudice or
favor as between the President and Senate, and
especially from that confidence in the wisdom, in
tegrity and purity Of Washington, which might
influence the Congress Of 80 in giving to him the
exclusive power Of removal; aud it was also in
tended to be full and accurate declaration of the
force and meaning Of the Constitution. So tue
people understood it, and on that Interpretation
the Constitution was adopted. But the Congress
OF SO afterwards gave different Interpretation,
on which the President relies, and that will next
be considered
In the bills reported to the Congress of 1899,
for the establishment of the State, Treasury and
/ War Departments, were the words 'whenever the
said principal officer shall be removed by the Pres
ident' thus declaring by implication that the
| President has the power Of removal. The House
refused to strike out the words on the final ques-
ton by two majority, and the Senate was equally
divided and the Vice President voted to retain the
words. Ii was a close question, and that decision,
by bare majority Of Congress- is now claimed "a
have the force OF Congressional declaration that
the power Of removal is, by the { constitution, in
the President to the exclusion Of the Senate, and
to the exclusion of any condition that Congress,
shall attempt 10 impose On this ground, and nc
other, can he, or his defenders, or the Supreme
Court, claim that the act Of 1867 is unconstitu.
tional But it be shown that the Congress o
1889 never thought Of giving to its acts such force
never questioned its own right to give the power
to remove principal officers las it has done as t
subordinate ofcers) either to the President alone
or to the President and Senate ooncurrently; bu
actually assumed and exercised the power to de
eide between these two modes, and even another
STILL (by the process of impeathment,) apo'
/ grounds Of erpedia,cy, then the force elaine,
for the acts Of 1889 fails. Or, if it can be mad'
to appear that removal by the President alone
and by the President and Senate concurenuy
are equally constitutional in the Judgment of thu
Congress of 1889, then, too, the claim Of th
President fails ..t
We can learn the grounds on which the Con
gress Of 1889 acted by the debates only; and VI
are sure that no man can carefully examine then
without coming to the conclusion that the claim o
the President is entirely unfounded, and that tn,
Congress of 1867 had as complete constitutions
power for its act, as did the Congress Of 1889 TO
its own o- t.. H..l
Before giving a brief analysis of the views o
the speakers in the House in classes, THE Senat
debates were secret, and are not reported, ] W
note the fact that the debate this grave eonsti
tutonal question occupied only two days; tina
thirty speeches were made; and, therefore, assum
ing that two entire sessions Of ordinary lengd
were given exclusively to this subject, the speak
ers had but sixteen minutes each In short tn
debate did not consist Of thoroughly studied an
deliberately wrought arguments, either on the con
stitutonal question, or the policy that would b
best but rather of impromptu suggestions G
interpretations doubts, possibilities and probabil
ities-precisely such as are now customary in iv
minute debate in the committee Of the whole q
amendments Such debate in 1889 may hay
derived sort Of sanctity for its venerable age
"uN surely sHNh ucpAtC III tVnElcoo HONi oIi
grave question, wond be regarded only as the fri
Impressions of the moment, subject to mobiles
ton on more mature reflection ratp
We now proceed with brief analysis of III
debates Of 1899.
The provisions Of the constitution CONSIDERS
in the debate were; l.l a1d .roasalnsrs
!. The provision for impeachment l,d n
2. The second clause of Sec 2 Art. 9, empow
erng the President, by and with the advice an,
consent Of the Senate to make treaties, and Il
nominate and appoint high officers; but III,
Congress may bylaw vest the appointment of sucl
inferior officers as they think proper in the Presi
dent alone, in the courts of law, or in the head
of departments 10 lH'4l oH 800 THaI l.H
II 81 Sec Art. 9, !" The Executive power shall
be vested in President of the United States o
America. 'r -ii l lun.I oval Il.r lr
We now give an aualytica index to the debate
referring those who desire to scrutnize It to Beu
tons Abridgemont or to Gales & Seaton's Regis
ter of Debates. ll lat s a1l' a. H.Hi e
Mr., Lee said the heads Of departments are ''in
7 ferior officers" and therefore Congress has faI
power to regulate the matter of removal. [Se,
last sentence, second clause Sec. Art 2, above !
Mr., Smith replied that this is a high office, ant
the clause referred TO applies to clerks and othel
subordinate persons. lie held that a high Office
could not be removed except by impeachment
Mr. Madison disposed of this proposition by