Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-02-26


Rcsolrcd That the foregoing report of the
c mmittcc on the judiciary hc H@rccd to and
adopted;
its condemnation of the refusal of the attor-
ncN general under Whatever influence to
send to the Senate copies OF papers cailcl for
10y its resolution of the 10Th of january aud
set forth in the reports of the committee Oh
the Judiciary, MS in violation OF his official
duty and Subvcrsivc of the fundamental prin-
ciplcs OF the government ana OF good adj
ministration thereof.
Rcsoired, That it is under these circum-
stances. the duty of the Senate to refuse its
officers, the documents and papers in refer
ence to the supposed official or personal mis-
conduct of whom are withheld by the cXccu-
/ tive or any head of II department when deemed
/ necessary by the Senate and called for in con-
! idering the matter.
/ ReSOired, That the provision OF section lT54 of
! the revised statues declaring THAT persons
| hOnolably discharged from the military or
| naval service by reason of disability resulting
/ from wounds or sickness Incurred in the line
of duty shall be preferred for appointments
to evil Offices, p, divided they are founu to
| possess the business capacity necessary FOR
! the proper discharge of the duties of such Of
/ flee" ought to be faithfully and fully put in
execution, and that to remove or propose to
/ remove any such soldier whose faithiulnGss,
! competency and character are above re
| proaCh and to give place to another who has
| not rendered suCh service, is Il violation of
! the spirit of the law and of the practical
gratitude the people and government of the
]
tutional liberty and the integrity OF the gov
eminent.
All OF which is respectfully submitted.
/ GEORGE +. EDMrNDs, GEORGE F. HoAR,
| JOHN j. INGALLS,. JAMES f. WILSON,
/ :. j. MCMILLAN, WILLIAM NJ. EVARTS
The report accompanying the resou
tons presents the correspondence by
which George ". Duskin was suspended
to make IL place for John ID. Burnett.
| Then it continues "Since the passage OF
the Act Of the 2d of March, 1861, regarding
the tenure of certain civil offices, it has
been the practice OF the committee on the
/ judiciary whenever Il nomination has been
made proposing the removal from Office OF
one person aad the appointment of an
other, to address a note to the head of the
/ department having such matters in charge
CASUALLY theattOrney general, asking that
all papers of information in the possession
of the department touching the conduct
and administration of the officer proposed
| TO be removed and touching the character
ana conduct of the person proposed to be an
/ pointed, be sent to the committee for il
Information. This practice has through
/ All administrations been carried on with
the unanimous approval of all the mem
/ Der~ of the committee, although the com
position of the committee has been dur
my this period sometimes of one political
character ana sometimes of another In
no instance until this time has the com
mittee met with any delay or denial in
respect of furnishing such papers ana in
formation with Il single exception, and i'm
which exception the delay and suggested
denial lasted for only two or three days
"A similar course was adopted in this
case, and the attorney general replied
under date of january -, 1856, transmit
ting all papers relating TO the appoint
ment of Burnett, but refusing to deliver
such as governed the suspension of Dus-
kin.
This letter says the report, although in
response to the direction Of the Senate
that copies of any papers bearing on the
subject within given period of time be
transmitted, assumes that the attorney
general of the United States is the ser
want of the president and Is 10 give or
withhold copies OF documents in his Office
according to the will of the executive.
~ our committee II unable 10 discover
either in the original act of 1859, creating
the office OF attorney-lgeneral, or in the act
of $50, creating the department of Justice,
any provision which makes the attorney
general of the uited States in any sense
the servant of or controlled by the eXecu-
tive IN the performance of the duties i'm
puted to linn by law or the nature of his
Office. 1t is true that in the creation OF
the departments of state, of war and OF
the navy II was provided in substance
that these secretaries should perform such
duties as should from time to time be en-
joined upon them by the presidents but 1t
must be obvious that the authority in
trusted by the statute in these cases to the
president to direct and control the per
Torrance of duties was only a superin-
tending authority to regulate the perform
auce of the duties that the claw required,
and not to require the performance of du-
ties that the laws had not devolved upon
the heads of departments, and not to dis
pense with or forbid the performance of
such duties according as it might suit the
discretion or the fancy OF the eXecuti, e.
| The executive is bound by the constitu-
ton and his oath to take care that the
laws he faithfully executed, and he is
| himself Us much bound by the regulations
of law as the humblest officer in the SEP
vice of the United States, and he cannot
have authority to undertake to faithfully
execute the laws, whether applied to his
own special functions or those of the de
partments created by law, otherwise than
by causing, so far as he lawfully may and
| by lawful methods, the heads of depart
ments and other officers of the United
States to do the duties which the law and
not his Will has imputed to them. The
/ important question then is whether it is
within the constitutional competence of
either House of Congress to have access IL
the official papers and documents in the
| various public offices of the United States
created by laws enacted by themselves.
1.-The committee feels authorized to state
after Il somewhat careful research, that
there is scarcely in the history of this gov.
ernment until now any instance of a re-
! fusal by IA head of IL department. or even
of the president himself to communicate
official facts and information, as distin
guished from private and unofficial pa
pers, motives, views reasons aud opinions
To either House of Congress, when uncon
ditionally demanded. Indeed, the early
| journals of the Senate show great mum
beers of instances of directions to the heads
OF departments-as of course-tO furnish
papers and reports upon all sorts of af
fairs, both legislative and executive.
The instances of requests to The pres
dent and commands to heads of depart
ments by each house of Congress, IRON
those days until now, for papers and infor
( nation on every conceivable subject Of
public affairs, are almost innumerable.
"Itappears to have been thought by all the
presidents, now for almost century, that
they were under Il constitutional duty and
obligation To furnish to either House the
papers called for unless, as has happened