Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-18
XLlX CONGRESS-.
TIE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF
REMOVALS CONTINUED.
Senators Dolph, Coke, Beck, and Edmunds
Heard From-Lively 0ratorioal
sharpshooting in the Senate.
WASHINGTON, March Il, 1856.

WASHINGTON, March II, 1856.
The senate took up, debated for some
time. and passed without amendment
the electoral.count bill. The discus
si.n took the form of expressions Of |
opinion. No amendments were offered,
and no division was had on the passage |
Of the bill.
Several messages from the President |
were laid before the Senate, one Of them |
beng unsigned, "but received" said |
President pro ten. Sherman, "in due |
aud official FORM
The message, on the suggestion Of the
Char and on motion OF Mr.. Cockrell,
was returned TO the President for his
signature.
The Judiciary Committee resolutions
came up in ORDER and Mr.. Dolph re-
sumed his speech, begun yesterday.
Mr.. Dolph cited decisions of the SD
preme Court to show that the power Of |
removal was incident to the power of
appointment. Hence he argued that,
as the President and Senate appointed, |
the Presidentand Senate should remove. |
Referring to civil-service reform he
said he did not know what it meant,
but whatever it meant both parties
woIe pledged TO it by their platforms. |
AheT quoting from various publications |
on civil service TO show dissatis.
faction with the Presidents departures !
from the civil-seryice idea Mr.. Dolph
said ne would not undertake to construe
the Presidents declarations, but what
ever his declarations, his acts had not
been in accord with the idea of civil
service. Mr.. Dolph had heard it said
IN this debate that the Senate had en-
tered on this controversy with the
President for the purpose Of keeping
Republicans in Office. He for one dis
claimed any such motive. There was no
desire to raise any question with the
Administration. lie did not believe
there was a Republican senator in the
chamber who was not willing to
treat the President precisely as he
would treat. a Republican President.
Mr. Dolph, however, would 60 further.
If the President would say there were
charges against a suspended officer, and !
if be furnished these charges to the |
Senate and asked the removal of the |
officer, Mr.. Dolph, for one, would con-
sent TO the suspension, provided the !
cause were reasonable, even though it |
might not have been q cause sufficient |
OF itself TO merit removal. But it was |
2 different matter when the President |
says to the senate: Il have removed |
4 b, and appointed c d. | will not
state what charges are made against |
a b, and will give him no oppOrtu-
nifty TO defend himself.
Mr.. Coke followed. Ever since the |
debate on the subject in the First Con-
gIcss. in 1889. Mr.. Coke said, there
lad been nothing rev or original stated
about Il. The great men engaged in that
ccbate had left nothing further to be
said. Underlying the question was
whether the power Of removal was
vested in the President alone or in the
President and Senate acting together.
The Constitution did not provide for
the consent Of the Senate to be given
to removals from Office. 1t had thought
it well TO put a check on too great an
ambition in the occupant of the EXecu-
tive chair in the matter Of appoint
ments. and so had coupled with the
Presidents power in that matter the
power of the Senate. 1t had not made
suy such provision as to removals.
This was case for the application Of
the maxim, "EIpr6SSiO minus erclusi0
aHDius." The President must have the
power to remove incompetent officials.
How could he carry out the policy an
nounced by the people in his election
without agents in harmony with his
purposes: How could he comply with .
the injunction TO take care that the
laws shall be faithfully executed" un-
less by securing men Of his own selec-
tion to execute the laws: Mr.. Coke
reviewed the historic features Of the
question, and read from the public ut
torances Of leading statesmen Of the
country in support Of his position. lie
maintained that the tenure.Of-Oilice law
was unconstitutional, and ridiculed the
claim made by Mr.. Edmunds that
the question now before the SEN
ate was in the interest of the calm
and orderly administration Of the Gov
eminent. Mr.. Coke contrasted the
course Of the Senate when Democratic
With the course Of the present Senate,
saying that a Democratic Senate had
notattempted to embarrass a Republican
Administration.
Mr.. Wilson, Of Maryland opposed the
report Of the majority. He did not pro-
pose 10 recall any part Of the great his
toric debate upon the question as to where
the light Of the power Of removal from
Office rested, but would rather aim to
argue the question upon the postulates
derived from our history, bat espe-
oally from the point of view Of
commOn-seuse. The Senate of Rome,
he said, in the height Of its gran
deur, could have scarcely treated poor
p1o-consul as the Senate of the nited
States has treated President Cleveland.
Poor, indeed, in spirit and dwarIed in
political significance should President
be who dared not address TO this Senate
a c0mmun cation on the subject which |
this Senate itself had brought into
question. When the first notes Of the
Senate's assaults were sounded, Mr..
Wilson continued, we were told all
along the lire that the majority must
have the Presidents reasons for re-
moving Republican officials. After
awhile the language was modified, and
the demand was only for the papers
connected with the removals and sus-
pensions, and finally, after much de-
Liberation, under the lead of crafty
councillors, II came to be a de-
maud, not for the papers connected
with the suspensions, but connected
with the management and conduct Of
tie presidential Office. Why this sinu-
Gus and underground method Of attack,
unless it be conceded that the Senate
bad no right to ak for such reasons:
Although he could not speak &c cathe-
d'G, yet he believed that in a very
large number Of cases the changes had
been made by the President because of