Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-11

tnat the order was sent by CHAIRMAN
Thurman to the Attorney-General call
ing for information in reference to a re-
moval that required the advice and con-
sent Of the Senate Just as in the case OF
an appointment.
There had been other Presidents be-
sides Mr.. Cleveland that had sent mes
sages to the Senate, and he (Mr. Pugh)
would read some Of those messages.
Mr.. Pugh read the messages of Presi-
dent Andrew Jackson, dated December
IL, 1888, and January IL, 1885, assert
ing the coordinate power Of the prcsl-
dental office. Mr.. Pugh then inquired
whatwas the explanation Of the opinions
Of the Senator from Vermont; where
would the foundations Of those opinions
be found-the opinions expressed in his
very remarkable speech Of yesterday?
The foundation Of that opinion was that
this power OF removal was not vested
IN the President by the Constitution,
either expressly or by implication, but
that 1t was legislative power vested
alone in Congress, and that the Prcsi-
dent had no power either of removal or
suspension, except such as he derived
from an act Of Congress. That was the
precise issue made in the First Congress
under the Constitution in 1850. That
was the precise issue made By Clay and
Calhoun in their contest with Andrew
jackson in 1885. If this power of re-
moval was a creature Of the Law, and
there was no power to make law ex-
cept by the two houses, then we
could find a predicate for the state
ment OF the Senator from Vermont
that either house of Congress could
call for papers under that view of the
Constitution. Under that view of the
power Of removal the Senator from
Vermont was fully justified in stating
that either house, by virtue Of the
power it possessed over this matter Of
removal. had the right to call for this
information. Mr.. Pugh read from the
speeches of Mr.. Edmunds during the
debate on the tenure-Ol-OiIice bill to
show that Mr.. Edmunds then main
tanned that a removal was legislative
act. In that debate, Mr.. Pugh con-
tinued, there was no doubt the begin
ming Of this view entertained by the
Senator. To-day he (Mr. Pugh) had
no doubt that it was the legal opinion
of that distinguished lawyer (Mr. Ed
munds) that under the law-making
power of Congress this power of
removal could be vested in the House
Of Representatives alone or the Senate
alone, or in the Speaker Of the House
or the President Of the Senate alone, or
that it could be vested in the two
houses jointly-that it was pure
creature Of the law under the absolute
control Of Congress. Mr.. Pugh read
from the speeches Of Calhoun and Clay
to show that the views entertained by
those public men supported the view Of
Mr.. EdmundS that removal was legl'-
latiye function and under the contro. %
Congress. He had Senator Walthall 10
read Jor him from the speech Of Sena-
tor Sprague in the Senate in the DEBATE
on the tenure-Of-oiIice bill a c1rrfh
statement Of the question herein Ia
yolyed, which statement, Mr.. PI,h
said, was known to have been wiz
ten by ChiefJustice Chase, express
ing. on the contrary, the conviction
that the only function Of tie Senate in
the cases involved in tn discussion
was merely one OF assent or dissent,
and strongly controvertin; the point
that the function Of removal was a
legislative one. lie (Mr. Pugh) boldly
challenged a reply to that paper as
direct authority TO support the view Of
Madison and the view that was under
stood to be that of Chief-Justice
Chase Just read. Mr.. Pugh read from
the report Of the minority the opinion
Of the Supreme Court delivered by
Justice Mile in the case OF Kilbourn
against Thompson. There was, he
said. in that opinion a recognition Of
the proposition that when one coordi-
uate department entrusted with special
powers called upon another coordinate
branch for information in relation to
the exercise of jurisdiction or powers
belonging exclusively TO that other de-
partment it was the duty Of the first to
inform the other Of the use intended 10
be made Of the information, so that it
might appear to the department having
it in possession whether it was its duty
70 transmit the information in order to
promote the exercise Of the constitu-
tional functions of the Government.
That was precisely the question in-
volved in this case now, he continued.
Let it be true that this was not the sub
stantial executive power vested by the
Constitution in the President alone:
let it be true that, like the power of
appointment, the Senate shared with the
President the power ofremOyal; letitbe
true that the power Of removal was a
legislative power and not an executive
power, and that the entire regulation OF
it belonged alone to Congress under the
Constituencies all that be true, and
he would now call the attention Of the
Senate 10 the expediency and the prac-
tlcability q such power being exercised
by the Senate. lie read from the re-
port the minority, as bearing upon the
point, portion of an extract from the
message of President Grant in 1852
calling attention 10 the embarrassments
likely TO arise from leaving on the
statute-bOObs the tenure-oi-o act,
and asking what faith the Presi-
dent could put in subordinate forced
upon him, and how such official
would be likely to serve an Admin
iStration, knowing that it had 10
faith in him. The information sought
of the Attorney General by the resolu-
ton of the Senate, he said, was to en-
able 1t, so said the majority report, to
decide whether they would advise and
consent TO the removal of these sus-
pended officers. so that if they did no,
advise and consent to the suspension or
removal these officers might bv opera
ton of the tenure-oi-olice act 70 ba,,
into their Offices when the Senate should
adjourn. What was that but eXer-
ciSing power by the Senate Of selecting
n cents for thp preSi1ent Ia o,.,r,,so his