The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1885-07-17

v
as leaders Of debate their speeches
went everywhere and reached aud were
read by all. The wood-chopper in the
forests of Maine, the planter by the
Southern gulf, the pioneer of the far
West and the banker, merchant and
workmen in the great cities OF the
East, were alike delighted and charm
ed to see them, and now and hereafter
the scholar in his study must indorse
and applaud the contemporary popular
judgment upon their merits.
Mr.. Calhoun brought to debate q
power of analysis and clcarness Of
thought which no speaker in the
American Congress has ever excelled
His style was mastery for his pur-
pose. No meretricious ornament dis
figured and no disfuseness weakened it.
1t was clear, strong, simple, condens
ed. His language was, in fact, as sim
pie and as pure as Franklin's, and, like
that great master of composition, he
commanded fit words at will. To
hear him was to believe in his SINGER
ity, in his caudor, in the depth and in
tegrity of his convictions. In deliv-
cry he combined earnestness with dig
nifty, and the known purity of his life
added moral sanction to his spoken
words.
Mr.. Webster, as a speaker on great
occasions ranks, perhaps, first among
Americans. In parliamentary eloquence
he was, in some respects, superior to
Burke, and it may bepredicted with con-
fidence that his reputation will endure
He will be honorably mentioned when
the great speakers of the world are
classified and their performances are
reviewed He was not "godliSe," but
he was great and his blows in contro-
versy were the blows of a giant.
For immediate effect upon an aud
fence, the speeches of Mr.. Clay were
not inferior to those of .. his coadjutors
In fire, dash, and enthusiasm he was
very Rupert of debate. and in i'm
passioned retort master. In deliv-
cry impressive and graceful, he was
vet upon occasion terrible in invec-
tive and sometimes overbearing in will.
He was fitted to lead in great struggles
to win admiration from eoes-and to
take, as of right, splendid position in
the history of his time.
These were the men who stood for
ward to question that removing power
of the President and to deprive that
power of all logical support But they
wholly disagreed with each other about
the source of the power, and also, in
the main, about its regulation. The
argument of each one of them was des-
truotive of the arguments Of the others.
Their views were not only diverse,
but inconsistent, and not only incon-
sistent, but contradictory. One of
them derived the power from the pow
er to appoint and vested it by impli-
cation in the President and Senate;
another admitting its executive nature
placed the control and regulation of it
in Congress,by virtue Of the last clause
of the eighth section of the first article;
the third argued inconclusively-
against all reason and authority-that
it was rather legislative than execu.
tive in its nature, and therefore class
ed it among the incidental powers of
Congress.
II anything were needed to confirm
our acceptance and approval of the
Marshall and Madison expositions of
the appointing and removing powers
of the government, it would be fur
nished by that debate of 1885. Be.
fore questioning the settled construc-
ton Of the Constitution upon the sub,
ject of removals from Office, "the
dauntless three should have at least
agreed upon the new construction to
be substituted for it, and prepared
themselves to vindicate the new de-
parture by harmonious and consistent
reasoning.
THE ACTS OF 1867 AND 1869.
By the act of 1869 the President is
to send nomination to the Senate
within twenty days after it shall meet,
for the place of the suspended officer.
If the Senate, during the session, shall
refuse consent to the nomination, then,
and not otherwise, he shall at the
same session send in another nomination
as soon as practicable AT this point
the suspension section abruptly ends,
without declaring what shall be done,
or what result will follow in case the
Senate shall not concur in the Sec
ond nomination.
The act of 1867, in its second sec
tion, had very explicitly declared that
in case the Senate should refuse to
concur in the suspension of an officer,
such officer should forthwith resume
the functions of his office and the
powers of the person so performing its
duties in his stead should cease. -
But as the section is repealed, there is
no express provision of law for the re-
instatem ent of a suspended officer.
And there can be no inference in favor
of his reinstatement at any time dur
ing the session, not only because the
President is to send in second nom-
inatiou, in case first one is rejected,
but for the stronger reason that the
designation of another to perform his
duties is expressly made to extend
to the end Of the session.
But it is to be inferred that the officer
will be entitled to resume his office
Immediately after adjournment of the
Senate, unless again suspended by the
President For then the time for
which another person was designated
to perform the duties of the Office will
have expired, and as the theory of law
is that suspension does not create a
vacancy, his right TO the oflice--in
abeyance during the suspension-re.
wives when the session ends. But,
beyond question, the President may
again suspend him on the adjournment
of the Senate, or afterwards, for the
power OF suspension is general, and
may be used by the President in any
recess according to his unlimited dis
erection, or in other words at pleasure
The very difference in principle and
detail between the acts of 1867 and
1869, on the subject of suspension, is
easily accounted for The act of 1867
was made for Johnson the act nf 1890