Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1869-03-23
the constitutional power of absolute

III was right TO fepeal III. Inc Send- |
tor from Vermont Mr.. Edmunds) has
spoken much of the danger to the lib
erty of the country from the love of |
power in the executives, but it should
be remembered that senators were no
more willing than the president to
yield up power when once obtained.
He (Sherman) thought it wrong to
refer in the discussion Of this quest
ion to the character of Gen. Grant OF
his wishes on the subject. The SEN
ate was not required to grant him any
special favor, but only to put him in
this respect upon the same footing
with all the other presidents from
Washington to Johnson.
Mr.. Cole spoke in advocacy of the
substitute. He was in favor of it be-
cause If removed one of the strongest
reasons that had been urged for the
enactment of the law, by requiring
him to send the nominations made by
him during the recess of the senate
within ten days after the beginning
of the next session, instead of leaving
him free to withhold them until near
the end Of the session. He was in ia
vor Of a repeal of the law because it
| had arisen out OF the stringent, but
temporary, necessity now past.
Mr.. Carpenter said that owing, pro
baby, TO his inexperience in legisIa-
tive debate, he was surprised at the
course of this discussion. Much had
been said about the high character and
great services Of Gen. Grant. No
one appreciated them more highly
than he did, but they had nothing to
do with the question before the Sem
ate, which was dry question of law,
namely: Whose is the power OF re-
moval under the Constitution Mr..
Carpenter then made an argument TO
show that the president had no Con
stitutiOnal right to remove a public
officer except by and with the advice
and consent Of the Senate. There
were, he said, few maxims of Con-
stitutional law so elementary and OBJ
vious that they were often forgotten.
Among these were some which bore
directly upon the question under dis
cussion. 1t should be remembered.
first, that the government of the Unit
ed States, and its several departments
and officers, possess no powers not
expressly granted, or resulting by nee
esSary implication from the words of
some express grant in the COnstitu-
ton. If the administration of the
government disclosed any deficiency
Of necessary power in any department
of the government, the remedy was by
amending the Constitution. The mere
discovery of defect did not author
lie the department to assume the
needed power. If the president might
usurp the powers because they seem
ed to him necessary, he would soon
beromc The peoples master instead
OF their servant There were but
two provisions of the Constitution APP
| piicaOle to the determination of the
extent Of the power of the president
on appointing to and removing from
Office The first was that authorizing
the president to appoint Ambassadors
and other officers for whose appoint
ment the constitution itself did not
provide. This provision contemplate
ed two things, viz, nomination and
appointment alone, and the appoint
ment by and with the consent Of the
senate. There being no express pro
vision for the removal from office, that
power was evidently to oe regarded
as mere incident OF the power of
appointment, it being necessary that
vacancy should exist before it could
be filled. Then, since the power Of
appointment belonged not to the pres
ident alone, but to him and the senate
together, the conclusion was inevita-
bic that the power OF removal also
belonged to the president and the
senate acting together, and not to the
president alone, and therefore the
president could not c0nsttutionally
make removals during the recess of
the senate. This view seemed to be
strongly sustained 10y the other pro-
visions authorizing the president to
fill vacancies that may happen during
recess, and by implication denying
that he has the power to create vacan-
cies when not in session. In conclusion
Mr.. Carpenter said that it was the
duty OF the senate to preserve this
law upon the statute book, because,
if once repealed, no matter how great
the necessity Tor it might at any fu-
ture time, 1t probably could never be
re-enaGtcd He would, however. vote
for It's suspension, because he thought
ii IA Quir,u ttil4i4 notifications which
Cpli.i u.H IA sell considered at this
Short SESSION oil congress, and not at
all for the reasons given by other sen
ators, aud if the law were left in force
, it would embarass the president, be-
cause be did not believe that either
| with the law or without it the presi-
, dent would have any right to make
| removals during the recess of the SEN
ave.
Mr.. Morton thought that all the ar
, gumentS in favor of the law itself far
} fetched, based solely upon technical
grounds, and are sufficiently answer
ed by the history and practice Of the
government for IS years. The posi-
ton OF the senators who had made
long and ingenious arguments to show
the conStltutionality, wisdom and ne
cessity of the law, and then announc-
ed that they were willing to suspend
, it, reminded him of the well-known
gentleman who was strongly in favor
OF the Maine liquor law, but utterly
opposed to its enforcement. Taught
, err
W. w. Atwater is elected Liquor
Il Commissioner in Rutland county.