Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-04-02
The Appointing Power.

Judge l0lcCuer OdS ucuScAcU luc
opinion of the Philadelphia court
upon the question of the removal of Re
corder Lane. Governor Pattison re
moved the recorder, and the Senate took
the position that he could not do so
without seeking it's advice and con-
sent )" since the recorder was appointed
under the law by the governor
by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate" and is re-
movable by the power that appointed
him. Judge Finletter in clear and
concise opinion, states that the point at
issue to be simply whether the governor
or the governor and the Senate, "appoint-
ed" the recorder; and he decides, Judge
Ludlow corcurring, that the governor
appoints.
The logic of the opinion Is entirely sat
isfactory. The lawyers of the Senate
can hardly congratulate themselves that
it required the exposition of a court to
exhibit it to them. The point was one
upon whicfra difference Of opinion might
occur in intelligent minds in the con-
struction of the language of the law, but
the court has the advantage OF the Sen
ate in the adoption of view that is most
accordant with the proper idea of legis'
lative and administrative functions.
When the law says that the recorder
shall be removable by the power that
appointed him, and when it further says
that the governor shall appoint the re
corder with the advice and consent OF
the Senate. though there was room fol-
raising the point that the governor
and the Senate, and not the governor
alone, appointed the officer, reflection
will not only show the contrary
construction to be the proper one
of the language used, but it dem
onstrates it to be the proper cne in
the light Of governmental policy
The governor is the nominating power
unquestionably; the Senate has but con
firming power. The governor appoints
the Senate assents. When the COVER
nor desires to remove, he is rightly left
to act upon his own Judgment, the Senate
having the power to approve or disap-
prove his new appointment. When
officers are elected by the people the
constitution provides that the represen-
tatives of the people in the Senate shall
take the initiative in removals. 1t re.
quires the "address Of thirds Of the
Senate" to the governor, to authorize
him to remove after notice and hearing.
When the governor appoints, with the
advice and consent OF the Senate, nc
notice or hearing . required by the law
The appointing power is authorized t.
summarily remove and no necessity
exists in public policy to require the as
sent of the Senate, but on the contrary
there are manifest advantages in placing
appointed officers at the summary dis
position of the chief executive. Just az
in every well-conducted business there
is one head who is held responsible fol
the action of his subordinates, and who
is therefore given the power to remove
them at his pleasure, so should the gov
ernor of state be at liberty to discharg'
the officers whom he has nominated, b,
being responsible to the people for th'
propriety of his action. There is entire
ly too much divided responsibility in ou
political administration. The best gov
ernment, national, state and municipal
is secured when there is one executiv,
head, held responsible for the action O.
subordinate officers, and himself remov
able at frequent intervals when he fail!
to satisfy the nublic Judgment.