The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-03-18

/ consent of the Senate. These facts were. he
said. in a few maxims of constitutional
law, so elementary and obvious 4hat-Lhey
were of en- forgotten; among these we're
some which bore directly upon the ques-
tion under discu sion. 1t should be re
membered firsi that the Goyernm mt of
the United States aud its several Depart
ments and officers possess no powers not
expressly. era anted or esUl ing by n nece =
SaTy impilca' iou from the words or some
express grant in the Constitution IT tue
admlnistratI OF the Go srnmsnt dis
clos q any deficiency of necessary power
in any Department of the Government.
the remedy VS. by amending the Gonsti-
tutlon the m re discovery of the defect
ala not aUthoI tze the department TO as
S1me the needed power. If the Pes
ldenb might aSue 2 powers because they
seemed to him necessary. he wou q soon
become the peoples master instead of
their servant. There We're b1t TWO pro-
visions OF the COnsti ution apple bic To
the discrimination of tue extent or the
power of the Pre- fdent in appointing a Il
removing from Office Tie first was that
aut horizi ug the Presidents Am bassadoIs
ana other officers for whose appointTnent
the Constitution itself did not provide.
This provision conts m pIat ed two things
nomination and appointment The nom
1natton was to be made by The President
alone, the appointment by and with the
consent of the Senate. There being no ex-
press provision for removal, that power
was evidently to be regarded as a mere
Incident of the powers Of appoint
ment, 1t being necessary that a vacancy
snould exist before IL cOu d be filled.
Then since the power of appointment
beIO8g to he President alone, but to him
and TO the Sen ate. the conclusion was in
eVftable Jnat the other power implied u
this DOwer of removal also belonged o the
President and Senate together, and not to
the President alone, and therefore that the
President could not constIGutionally maze
the same removals during a recess OF the
Senate. This view seemed TO be sustained
Dy the other proy1s1o $ authorizing the
President to ID vacancies Jnat may hap
pen during recess, and by I'M mpiicaiion de-
ny1ng he nas power 10 create vacancies
when the Senate is not in session.
In conclusion, he said it was the duty OF
the Senate 10 preserve this law, because if
once repealed, no matter how great the
necessity for IL might be at any future
time, il probably could meyer be re-enact-
ed. He would vote for its suspens sion be-
cause he thought it required certain mOdi-
ncatlons which could not be considered
his session, aud n OF at all for the reasons
were LETT in force, 1t would EN- barraSs the
President, because he did not believe that
with The law or without IL the President
would nave any right To make removals
during O recess of the senate.
Morton thought all the arguments In
favor OF the law far-fetched based solely
on technical grounGs and are sufficiently
answered by the history and practice of
the Government for seventy. eight years.
The position of the Senators who made
the large and Ingenious arguments to
show the constituttonaIIly, wisdom. and
necessity of the law, anu then annoance |
that they were willing 10 suspend It, re-
minded him OF the wei knO zn gentleman |
who was strongly IN favor of the Maine |
liquor law, but opposed to its enforcement. |
-LAughter.I
AT four o'clock the Senate, on motion of |
soon after adjourned.