Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-04-01


ed up in our legislation. Among thos
who took part in that memorable de
/ bate were some who had been mem
bers of the Constitutional Convention
and so might be supposed to under
stand that document. Prominen
among the majority were Messrs. Madi
son, Ames, Boudinot and Baldwin. O
| these, Mr.. Madison had been a mem
Der Of the Convention. Prominent OF
the side of the minority were Messrs
| Sherman, Gerry, Smith and Jackson
| of Georgia. Messrs. Sherman ant
Jackson had been members of thu
Convention. The latter was its Secre-
tary, and the former very prominent
member, so that prestige was with the
minority.
But from the very beginning there
has been difficulty in framing Con.
stitutions in this country. Either it is
objected that the document gives toe
much power to the President or to the
people. The whole field cannot b.
canvassed now. Attention must be
confined to the matter of official re.
movals. And here the previous ques.
| ton of the Presidents power In official
appointments comes up. No one will
question that the Constitution aims to
guard against centralization. It aims
to secure the powers of Government by
retaining them in the hands of the
people as far as possible. Accordingly
the Constitution withholds from the
President, for the most part, all abso-
lutte power of appointment. For even
in regard to appointments during the
recess of the Senate it is now settled
that the salary dates not from the ap-
pointment by the President, but from
the confirmation by the Senate.
But the Constitution provides that
Congress may by law vest the appoint
ment of such inferior officers as they
think proper, in the President alone,
in the courts of law, or in the heads of
departments. Where the power of ap-
pointment is vested in the President
alone, it is conceded that he has abso-
lutte power of removal.
The merits of the Deadlock now
come up. Was the appointment of
the official over whose removal the
difficulty has arisen vested in the Presi-
dent alone? It was not. But to re-
turn. A very learned writer on Ameri-
can law, claims to be able to reduce
Judge Story's doubts to all absurdity.
He reasons in this way: Suppose the
President wishes to remove an officer
and com municatcs his wish to the
Senate. That body calls for the rca-
son; the President gives it, and the of
ticer replies through some Senator.
The President then is an accuser or de-
fendant in respect to one of his own Of
ficers before collateral branch of the
government, which assumes to decide
between them and be superior to both.
And suppose the Senate does not con-
sent to his removal, the officer retains
his place after he has become obnox-
ious to his superior, and it may be, OBJ
tains impunity for bis crime. Is this
consistent with either the dignity or
responsibility of the Executive?
This appears to cover the whole
ground in the case. 1t would be diff
cult perhaps to find the same number
Of words containing more unwarranted
assumption and hollow sophistry than
what are in the above language. The
appointee of the President is not his
own officer. He is an officer of the
people as much as If he had been di-
rectly elected by them. A mans right
to an office does not depend on the
mode of his introduction into it, but
upon the fact that he has compiled
with the mode prescribed by law.
In respect to the relative power Of
the Senate and the President, it would
seem that the power that can try the
President on impeachment and on con-
| viction depose him. must be officially
his superior. 1t is likely that the Sen
ate will not be any more ready to al.
low impunity for crime than the Presi-
dent. The assumption is an insult to
| the Senate. There Is one view of the
case that we have not seen presented
which has weight. It is that although
appointments are usually for limited
time, yet when an official is remov-
ed before the expiration of his term
his removal is an official arrest, and
the principle of the Habeas Corpus
Act will apply and he can have the
cause of his arrest inquired into. And
the court of inquiry would very proper
ly be the Senate, as it shares the re-
sponsibility of his appointment.
But what has been the practice of
the Senate and the President hereto
fore in regard to this matter? In hum
dreds OF instances the President has
complied with tie request of the SEN
ate in such cases. In 1885 President
Jackson refused to furnish the docu-
ments. But the Senate got even with
him. He had nominated successor
to the officer removed and the Senate
rejected the nominee without divis-
ion, and the office lapsed.
In 1879 the Senate was Democratic.
The Committee on the Judiciary was
composed of Messrs. Thurman Ne.