The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-09-05
HON. BENJAMIN HARRISON of
The Executive Power,


The Executive Power,
It is amazing that any Intelligent man
should dare to go before the people on an
issue so utterly indefensible as that which
Gov. Plaisted clearly defines in his Satur-
day evening speech at Congress Hall, TO
wit: that the term 'Fthe executive" as used
in our constitution means the Governor and
the Governor alone, and not, as has been
generally understood, the Governor and
Council; and this, too, in the face Of the
unanimous opinion of the Justice OF the
Supreme Court, in antagonism of this posi-
ton.
But supposing for the sake of the argu-
ment, that the Governor is correct; that he
is ''the supreme executive that "execu-
tive' as used in the constitution, means
the Governor alone, and not the Governor
and Council, what follows?
In his great speech in the Senate of the
United States in 1885, on "the appointing
and removing power" Daniel Webster ask
ed: "What is executive power? What is the
degree, and what are the limitations?
What model or example had the trainers of
the constitution in their minds when they
spoke of executive power? Did they mean
executive power as known in England, or
as known in France, or as known in Rus
STA? Did they take it as defined by Mon
tesquieu, by Burlamaqui, or by DeLolme?
All these differ from one another as TO the
extent Of the executive power of the gov
eminent. Now, sir, I think it perfectly
plain and manifest X that when they say
it 1.-THE executive power shall be vested in a
President, they mean that one magistrate to
be called President, shall hold the execu-
tive authority; but they mean further, that
he shall hold this authority according to
the grants and limitations of the constitu-
ton itself. u X They did not intend certain
ly sweeping gift of prerogative. They did
not intend to grant to the President what
ever might be construed, or supposed, or
imagined to be executive power; and the
proof that they meant ne such thing is,
that Immediately after using these general
words they proceed specifically to enumer-
ate his several distinct and part icular au-
thorities; to fix and define them"
Gov. Piaisted, it is true, is by the consti-
tuition of the State termed "the supreme
executive power" That is to say, as defin-
ed by the dictionary makers, he is "highest
in quality, dignity, authority or power"
of those associated with him in the execu-
tive part of government. -. He is the head,
the chief of the executive power, "most ele-
waited in rank, station or degree, pre-emi-
nent, greatest And according to the same
authority as the executive power is that
part of the government, or of the powers OF
State, which is employed in putting into
execution the laws made by the legislative
power, or the DEGREES of the Judicial pow
err it follows that the Governor is the
chief of our executive authority, but as such
he is by no means clothed with the prerega-
tiyes and powers of monarch. His duties
and privileges are clearly defined; these he
has been permitted 10 exercise without let
or hindrance. 1t is only when he has I'M
dertaken to usurp the prerogatives OF his
associates in the executive power OF the gov
eminent that he has been antagonized.
As to the power of removal, out of which
this unfortunate controversy has arisen, it
is true of our Constitution, as Of the Cou-
stitution of the general government, that
the power is nowhere conferred, except in
case of conviction or impeachment. I'm
the only instance in which the Constitution
speaks of removal from Office" says Mr..
Webster in the speech already referred to,
''It speaks of it as the exercise of the judi
cial power'' But, continued Mr.. Webster,
"the. whole matter is sufficiently plain. Moth
| ing is said in the Constitution about the
| power of removal because it is not separ-
ate and distinct power. 1t is part OF the
power of appointment, naturally going with
it or necessarily resulting from it.
| Where officers hold their places at will, that
will is necessarily the will of the appointing
power. There is no such thing as
| any distinct official act of removal.
| Not only in the nature of things, but also
according to the practice of the government,
the power Of removal is incident to the
| power of appointment. 1t belongs to it, is
attached to it, forms part of it, or results
| from it, If this be true, the inference is
manifest. ever holds the power
| of appointment, holds also the power of re-
moyal. But it is the President and the Sen
ate, and not the President alone, who holds
the power of appointment; and, therefore,
| according to the true construction OF the
Constitution, it should be the President and
Senate, and not the President alone, who
holds the power of removal"
| We believe even the usnrper Plaisted has
never vet undertaken to claim that the
''power of appointment is the exclusive
prerogative of the supreme executive
though he is by no means modest as claim
ant. But if the appointing power be not
his, it is certain that nowhere in the Con-
stitution has he any grant for his arbitrary
and illegal conduct as regards Col. j. w.
Spaulding, and other officers, whom he al
fects to have removed, and whom he has IL
gally and wrongfuliy deprived of the COM
pensation given them by the statute, and
which is legally and morally theirs.
AS Gov. Plaisted does not hold the exclu-
sive power of appointment his pretended
removal of officials is an arbitrary usurpa-
ton of authority; and to that extent he is a
usurper. AS these officers hold their offices
by as clear title as the Chief Executive
himself, his refusal to sign the warrants for
the payment of the salaries lawfully audited
by the Council he has to this extent re-
beled against the laws of the State and his
conduct is subyersive of the government
itself. And the insolent language OF the GOV
ernor in referring to the opinions OF the JUS