Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1881-07-21
The Presidents Power of Re-
mOVal.
BY THOMAS CALLAHAN.

nounce any man or measure from the
own individual schemes or interests,
and from this course he seems unwill-
ing to depart. Itgives length, breadth
and clearness to views, and firmness
steadiness to character. But at the
same time he is satisfied that if any
one suppOses that the recent jog at
Washington was a matter of personal
spleen or strife between certain persons
or officials, those SO judging are mis-
taken.
The principle involved is one of inn
portance to all parties, being a safe
guard against Capitalization, which
consists in gathering many classes of
powers into the hands of one official,
and not in the length of the term of
that official.
| The question is radical one, that is
to say, it underruns the very founda-
tions of our Government, and is by that
means new one in the history of our
Jurisprudence.
a comparison of the prerogatives of
the king of Great Britain and the pow
ers exercised by the President OF the
United States, will SET out the matter.
In regard to the king, Sir VIM. Black
stone says:
In every monarchiil government it is
necessary to distinguished the prince from
his subjects, not ouly by the outward pomp
and decoration of majesty, but also by ascrib-
ing to him certain qualities as inherent in his
royal character, distinct from, and superior to,
those of any other individual in the nation.
The philosophical mind considers the 70, al per-
son merely as one IN III appointed by general
consent to preside over many others. But the
mass of mankind would become insolent and
re efractory, if they were taught tD consider
Their prince as a man Of no greater perfect on
than themselves. Tne law therefore ascribes
to the king in his hi n political character Ger
tain attributes of a great and transcendent
nature, by which the people are led to consid
er him in the light of a 'uperior beiug and
pay him that awful respect which may enable
him with greater ease to carry on the business
of government. The first Of these attributes
is Sovereignty. The kings person is sacred
and no power on earth can try him i'll a cr.m
inal way, much less condemn and lunlsf
him."
Bracton, another very eminent writ,
er on regal Jurisprudence, says:
THE kmg Is the minister of Gsd on earth
Every power is under him, and he is under ne
one but God. 1t is maxim of law that the
king can do no wrong. The law ascribes tt
the king absolute perfection. The king il
: not only incapable of doing wrong, but evel
: of thinking wrong. He can never mean to dc
an i'm proper act. In him is no te.ly or weak
ness"
Kings have always been willing t(
act on this idea. James |. of Englant
says that "as it is atheism and bias
phemy to dispute what the Deity may
, do, SO it is presumption and sedition il
sui ject to dispute what the kine
may do in the height of his pow
: er"
But the people of the United States
have adopted the philosophic view
. They regard the officers of the Govern
ment only as servants or agents author
, lied to perform acts in certain ways
and by the use of designated means
The common people are taught to con
slider rulers as meh Of no greater per
fection than themselves. There i
+ nothing in law or fact that demand
for them any awful respect. Presi
dents can do wrong; Governors can d'
wrong; magistrates can do wrong, an'
. all of them are responsible to the peo
pie for their acts. We have impeache,
: one President, and repealed larg
number; and the people of the State
repeal Governors every year.
The Constitution of the United State
y and the laws made i'll pursuance there
l.. of, do not invest the President as th
d d civil ruler of the nation, with even on
! lot or title of what the advocates q
= divine right calls prerogative, Black
II stone calls sovereignty, and kini
James "the height of his power"
The duties of the President ar
y squarely laid down, and the mod
= of their performance pointed out.
The Constitution authorizes the Pres
j.. ident, by and with the consent of TIL
Senate, to appoint certain classes Of n
ficers, but does not specify who sha
y have the power of removal. The fal
: ure to so specify must be regarded
6 an oversight on the part of the fran
= ers of the Constitution. 1t may neve
have occurred to them that any othe
than the appointing power could RI
|. move, or would attempt to remove a
l-of1icer. Or they may have regarded
rs Legal sequitur, that as those Off
}, ers were really part of the Executiv
d system, and as the President could n,
;, be removed except upon inipeachmer
- and conviction, so these officers al
pointed could not be removed excei