The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-02-09
IMPORTANT -PRECEDENTs.
The Republican Position Sustained by the
Action of the Senate in the Past.

|
The Republican Position Sustained by the
Action of the Senate in the Past.
Special to Chicago Times.
Senator Edmund is ready with his report on
the reply of the Attorney-generalt to the Senate
judiciary committees application for informa-
ton regarding a removed official. He has had
the records overhauled for presidents, and is
greatly pleased at what he has found. The fol-
lowing is in substance the historical portion of
the Senator'S report:
Three Senate committees have considered the
whole subject of the relations of the executive
to the Senate and Congress, and have taken sub
st~antially the same position. that the Senate has
a right to participate with the President in re-
movals, as it has q right to participate with him
in appointments, and that Congress has a right
to enact almost any kind of a law regulating the
exercise of the appointing power by the Presi-
dent. The first of these committees reported III
1926. and had Thomas H. Benton at it head.
In 1885 John G. Calhoun had a committee Gre
ated TO consider the growth and the proper
means of curtailing executive patronage, and
made a very able report, not much of which,
however, was devoted to the matter of removals.
In 1874 a third Senate committee was raised on
this subject, ard was headed by Senator More
head, who made his report June ID. 1914. The
Benton and Calhoun reports and the debates on
the latter are attached to the Morehead report,
which devotes more space than its predecessors
to the alleged right of arbitrary removal pos
sessed by the President. Senator Morehead
said that the power of removal without cause
and without the consent of the Senate was not
only not conferred on the President by the Consti-
tuition, but was expressly withheld from him. He
admitted that the power had been exercised
without impeachment and with the acquiescence
of the constituted authorities ever since the or
ganization of the government, but he pointed
out that for the first thirty years removals were
scarcely ever made except for cause,
and with that practice he contrasted
the practice Of removals for po-
litical reasons, which began sixteen years
before, and had been general for twelve years.
1t was not, he said, till 1896, that the Senate's
attention was called to the Presidents assump-
ton of power not belonging to him, and it's atten-
ton was then called to it by the exercise of the
appointing and removing power by a President
who was elected by the House of Representa-
tives after a heated and excited campaign. The
committee then created 1.-THE Benton committee)
reported in favor of congressional regulation of
the appointing power, and reported six bills to
curtail the Presidents patronage, and also to re-
peal the four-years act of 1920. One Of these
bills was to prevent the arbitrary removal of
army and navy officers. None Of these bills was
acted on. The Calhoun mint reported two
bills. One of these repealed the four-years law,
and made it the duty of the President to report
to the Senate the reasons for every removal
made during the recess; the other bill regulated
the managsnMe M Of public deposits.
Ito OIUu0 OllI DdSSGu IL oG0aIO aIJ6T
a most interesting debate by a vote of
81 to 16. Mr.. Morehead describes this as the
reclamation by the Senate of the power which,
by the casting vote of the Vice-president, was,
in 1888, yielded to the President, but which Con-
gress had the right to reclaim at any time. Mr..
Morehead argues the invalidity of the precedent
of 1889 on account of the peculiar circum-
stances, George Washington then being Presi-
ident, and the Senate being entirely new to its
duties. Besides. he says. all that was con
coded was the Presidents power to remove for
good cause. He admits that Madison argued for
the Presidents power of removal, but he also
points out that Hamilton, who was always on the
side of a strong executive. said, in No. 81 of the
Federalist, that the President could only remove
with the consent of the Senate. Hamilto used
this to allay the fear OF those who thought the
President might make a clean sweep on coming
into office. Fisher Ames construed the
Constitution as Hamilton did. Down to
1922 says Mr.. Morehead, ''the power was
not construed as authorizing the removal of
honest qualified men. The motive for its sxer-
else was public policy-not party resentment"
The report vigorously condemns allowing the
President to divide the Offices "as a victorious
general distributes the spoils of conquest. A
citizen of the United States" says the report in
small capitals, who accepts a public trust, how
ever obscure his birth or humble his employ
ment. has an inviolable right to be protected in
the faithful discharge of his duties from the vio-
lence of the menaces of arbitrary power Speak
ing of the Eewly introduced spells system, the
report says:
Honest, capable and faithful public servants
have been removed from offices which they had
filled with credit to themselves and advantage to
the country TO make room for incompetent para
sites, whose meager qualifications for such off ces
were 70 be acquired at the expense Of the gov
ernment, and whose experience was TO be ma.
tured at q cost not to DO estimated, consisting of
losses to the Nation perhaps never to be recoy-