Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-19
XLIX. CONGRESS-.
THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION or
REMOVALS CONTINUED.
Things stili Very Lively in the Senate
Speeches Of Messrs, Brown and Spooner
on the Presidents Position.
WAsuINaroN, March ls, 1886

the free list. Referred.
The interstate commerce bill w as
made the special order for March Both,
and the bankruptcy bill for March 3lst
The Senate passed, without debate,
the bill providing for commission Of
five persons TO investigate the alcoholic
liquor traffic, its relations TO revenue
and taxation. and its general economic,
criminal, moral, and scientific aspects,
in connection with psuperism, crime,
social vice, public health, aud the gen.
eral welfare Of the people.
The bill provides that the commits.
sioners shall be appointed by the Pre-.
sident with the consent Of the Senate
that all OF the commissioners shall not
be advocates Of prohibition; and that
they shall serve without salary.
The Senate also passed without debate
the bill providing for the study Of the
nature of alcoholic stimulants and mar
cotics and their effects on the human sys-
TEN.
The bill applies TO the schools in all
the Territories, the District OF Colum-
bia, and TO the military aud naval acad-
emies and Indian schools.
At O'Clock the Judiciary-COm nit
tee resolutions concerning ar. Garland
came up.
Mr.. Van Wyck offered as an amend
ment TO the resolutions the following
4. Al a., Ill e,,cb caro~ oc rn,r,,..i . bo
matter Of confirmation shall be consi1-
cred In open session Of the Senate"
Mr.. Sewell, occupying the chair, re-
marked: 1.-The amendment will be
printed and lie over"
Mr.. Brown then took the floor in op-
position to the report Of the majority
OF the committee. Mr. Brown said it
seemed to him that there was but a
single question at issue between the
President and the majority Of the Sem
ate. That question vas, Had the Pre-
sideDt. without the advice and consent
OF the Senate, the power to remove a
Federal officer when, in his opinion,
the public interest required such re-
movsly
This was practically legal question,
as the Constitution was the supreme
law. II it conferred the power Of re-
moyal on the Presi cent alone, that set
tied the question. no matter how many
acts Of Congress might have been
passed in violation Of the Constitution.
If the Constitution did not itself direct
ly confer the poser, but conferred
upon Congress the power to legislato
upon that question. then we must look
to the acts Of Congress in determining
the power of presidential removals,
whether with or without the consent of
the Senate. Let Us examine the Con-
stitution.
Mr.. Brown then read from the Con-
stitution sections relating TO the Execu.
tive power to show tha' the President
possessed the whole OF that power cx-
cept as to particulars in which the
Constitution specifically qualified. 1t
did qualify the appointing power Of the
President as TO certain officers by re-
Quiring the advice and consent of the
Senate to their appointments but
placed no such qualification on his,
power Of removal. After an examina-
ton of the Constitution to establish
these points Nlr. Brown took up the
question Of contemporaneOus con-
structions and precedents established
by practice Of the Government, begin
ming with the year 1889. lie quoted
the declarations of distinguished men,
bers oithe First Congress on the question,
involving substantially, he said, the
question involved here. lnthat debate
Madison had declared: alt is said that
it COMFORTS with the nature Of things
that those who appointed should have
power to remove. But do not con-
ceiye that this sentiment is warranted
by the Constitution" Madison had also
said II you say an officer shall not
be displaced but by and with the advice
OF the Senate, the President is no longer
answerable for the conduct Of the OIL
GER"
Mr.. Brown cited a number or ex-
tracts from decisions Of Chef.Justice
Marshall, and from Judge Storris's work
on the Constitution, aud opinions Of At
torney-Generals, TO prove that the re-
sponsiblity Of the President was not to
the Senate, but to the people IN eases Of
removals from Office. We have, then, be-
said, the concurrent testimony Of our
most distinguished commentators.
judges, and presidents, and a number
Of the most distinguished Republican
statesmen, as we'll as the Unbroken
practice Of different Presidents through
all Administrations from 1889 10 1867,
that the President had the power, with
out consulting the Senate, TO remove
Federal officers, whether civil o. milf
tary. So much for the constitutional
construction on the question for the
first three quarters Of the century Of
the republic. Unfortunately. at the
end Of that period, the two sections Of
the country became engaged in the
civil war. At the end Of that strng-
gle the dominant party in Con-
gItss. At time when passion and pre-.
JUDGE were at their highest, found in
the chair = President lAudrew John
som, elected by them as ice-President,
who bad been a Democrat all his life,
and had been put upon the Republican
ticket because Sl having been z consist
ent Union man. The feeling Of antago-
nism between President Johnson and
the Republican majority Of the Senate
became intensified, and they deter
mixed, in order better to serve their
party purposes, 10 hedge hin in 50 that
he should not exercise the powers that
for three quarters Of a century had been
exercised by the President. Congress
then, in 1867, passed tie tenire-or.oiace
law.
Mr.. Brown recited at length sections
Of Law showing that it required the Pre-
sidept 20 give TO the Senate, among
other things, evidence ard reasons for
suspertiing officers during the recess Of !
the Senate. He stated thst when pas
sion had in some measure subsiied, !
that section was modified, in 1869, un-
der the Administration Of President /
Grant, so as, among other things, TO |
dispense with the statement Of rea-
sons. II the law Of 1867, he said, /