National Republican., 1877-09-10
THE RIGHTS OFTHE EXECUTIVE.
When the trainers Of the Constitution Of
De limited States dist rihntcd the nnMers of

When the trainers Of the Constitution Of
the United States distributed the powers Of
government among three distinct depart
nents, they did 30 because they thought
that the liberties Of the people could best
Be preserved by the system of checks and
balances which they embodied in that in
strument Thus, although many Of the
most valuable features Of our Government
ere directly derived from the British Con-
stitution, yet II is in many important re-
pects quite different. In nothing is this
difference so manifest ms in the manner In
which the Legislative branch Of the Govern
ment is limited and controlled by thesJu-
dicial and Executive Departments.
The Supreme Court may annul q law
passed by Congress, whereas the unlimited
power Of Parliament is subject to no such
restraint The President can to some ex-
tent control the Legislative branch of the
Government by means of the veto power,
but this prcrogative ofthe Crown is virtually
sbolished in England by long disuse. In
hct, as is well known, the Legislative and
Executive branches Of the British Govern
nent are merged in each other by the
uAge which requires the ministry to always
Be one which can command q majority Of
the House of Commons.
We are so accustomed to follow British
precedents both In our courts of law and in
eur legislation that our Legislative bodies,
including Congress, are very prone to as
sume the same imperial powers which Par
Rament unquestionably possesses. 1t is
very manifest, therefore, that the Judicial
and Executive branches are called upon TO
exercise continual watchfulness In order to
prevent their constitutional functions from
being usurped. Legislatures are always
disposed to assume great deal upon the
ground that they are the direct representa-
ives of the people, forgetful that they are
The creatures Of constitutions which limit
thcir functions.
The past history Of the Congress Of the
United States contains abundant proofs that
that body has not been free from this ten
dcncy to usurp functions which do not con-
stitutionally belong to it. The manner in
which the appointing power has been I'M
properly interfered with by Congress
frcibly illustrates thisassertion. The Con-
stitution provides that the appointing power
shall be exercised by the Executive, subject
20 the consent of the Senate. The functions
Of the Senate in this case are clearly restric-
tive and judicial, and not dictatorial. II is
veil known, however, as q matter of fact
that executive officers have been, to a large
extent, appointed at the dictation of mem-
bers Of Congress. They are spoken Of rs
The appointees, not Of the President, but of
some particular Senator or Representative
Such usurpation Of power upon the part
sf either branch Of Congress, Or of both
combined, or of any individual mem her, is
. clear violation Of the highest law of the
land, and should not he tolerated. In such
eases the Executive has no discretion. His
sath Of office obliges him to assert the
rights Of that coordinate branch of the
Government, no matter from what source
they may be attacked. The liberties Of the
people can only be preserved by sacredly
maintaining for each branch of the Govern
nent its proper rights. 1t was the duty Of
the Tribunes in ancient Rome 10 protect the
people from the opposition Of the Senate
md Consuls. In like manner, the President
sr the United States Is bound to maintain
Me constitutional powers Of the Executive
Department against the imperious dictation
q Senators, no matter how powerful and
Influential soever they may be. This he
hould do not for himself alone, but for the
Deople whom he represents. The we'll
Known firmness Of the present incumbent
u the Presidential office is q sufficient
gmrantee that he will see to II that the
Republic suffers no harm from such in
kimgements of one Department upon the
sights Of another.