The New York herald., 1877-12-10
The New York Custom House omcers.

The New YORK Custom Mouse OnaceEss
The attempts of President Hayes to con-
fuse the issue between him and the republi-
can Senators will perhaps justify an exposi-
ton of the subject. We lay the case OF Sur
veyor Sharpe out of the question, since his
term has expired and there is no serious
opposition to the Presidents selection for
his successor. Collector Arthur and Naval
Officer Cornell are in Office under commits
sions which run for four years from the date
when they were signed by President Grant.
The four years not having expired these
officers cannot be legally removed, except
by the joint action Of the President
and Senate. They are in office for
stated term, which cannot be abbreviated
by the mere will of the President. Their
removal and the appointment OF their
successors are not one and the same thing,
although both might, indeed, he accom-
plished by the one act of making new
appointment But the law allows the two
things to be divided and done separately.
An officer may be removed by the President
and Senate by one act, and his successor
may be appointed by subsequent act.
The removal Of the officer would create
vacancy; the appointment of his successor
would fill that vacancy. The usual method,
lied by law, is simply to appoint sue
cessor, which. of course, displaces the in
cumbent. But both questions are rs really
involved as if dealt with by separate acts
one to create the vacancy and the other to
fill it.
It is only necessary to bear this distinc-
ton in mind to see how futile is Mr.. Hayes
reasoning on this subject. He argues as if
it were only case of appointment whereas
it is primarily case of removal Had the
terms of Messrs Arthur and Cornell expired
nobody would resist the action Of the Presi-
dent in nominating successors. But there
is no vacancy. The law intends that they
shall complete the full term of four years
unless the Senate as well as the President
finds reasons for an earlier removal If Mr..
Hayes would submit the two questions to
the separate action Of the Senate he
would soon learn whether he could
get its consent to these removals.
This is the first question in the order of
thought, in the order Of importance, and
probably also in the estimation both of the
President and the Senators. But Mr.
Hayes arguments apply merely to the fill
ing Of existing vacancies. They have no
relevance to question Of creating vacancies
portunity to fill them, which is the real
question now pending between the two
parties to this dispute. Mr.. Roosevelt
might be a suitable successor to Collector
Arthur if his term had expired but, there
being no vacancy, it is proper for the SEN
ate, which is empowered by law to retain in
Office all the persons it has confirmed, to
exercise its own discretion as to whether
they shall be removed.
The law clothes the President with o
power of temporary suspension only be-
cause the Senate is not always in session.
II it were the President could not take q
step without its consent He missed his
opportunity to suspend the New York Gus
tom House officers by miscalculations re-
specting the extra session. He supposed
it would be short, and as suspended Off
GERS would be restored at its close if the
Senate failed to confirm their successors,
the President preferred to wait until the
interval between the extra and the regular
session. 1t turned out that there was an
interval Of only ten minutes, and SO the
President was foiled On MI questions of
removal he and the Senate now stand on an
equal footing However correct may be
his Interpretation of his powers rs to filling
vacancies he has no advantage over the
Senate in attempts to make removals.