The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-02-27
G1e Gttteltigetleer.
wnEELINo. w.NA., IEnNUANY ~, lsso.
sa.psyasa ollIoaI. ..lno tsl.Iy 2 ,93, ,a.

Suspended UnIcsrs -lhs EAl'Ty 4'9't'on'
The deadlock bet seen the President
and the Senate has raised some interesting
side issues. For example, there are sena-
tors who have given the opinion that a
dsuspendedn officer stands on the same
footing as a removed" tttiler, and that
Whatever may happen 10 the person noIni-
mated "a successor, the incumbent im'
msdiately preceding cannot get back with
out the President reinstating him, by
this time 60 important point ought to be
settled beyond controversy, and We think
II Ia settled in favor OF the person suS'
pended. But so long as the President con
tinues to exercise his power Of removal
the restoration 10 office will avail little
The Presidents frieuds declare that II il
his purpose to suspend the restored Of
ficer as soon az he takes his place, aud 10
fill the vacancy with. the nominee whom
the Senate has refused to confirm,
The question has been passed on by
the Supreme Court Of the United Statea
in Embry rs the Uaihd States, 10 Otto
$50. B. Embry was appointed by Presi
dent Jobr sou, April 20, 1861, to be Dep:
uty Postmaster at Nashville, and was COM
missiOued for four years, General Grant
acting under tho amendment to the ten
ure Of office acr, IN April5 1863, appoint
ed Eos Hopkins to succeed Mr.. Embry.
Hopkins WIS not centred, and Embry, on
July ~, agsin entered upon his Office,
Embry brought suit in tia COurtOt Claims
to secure the salary paid to Hopkins while
hs held the Cilice awaiting the Senate'a
action. Tho Court OF Olaimes decided
agairs. Embiy, who took an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which affirmed the de-
cislon. Chief Justice Waite, delivering
the opinion, said;
When EnbIy was appointed the PreaI-
dent had power 10 suspend him for cause.
The law also provided that II suspended
he should draw no salary 30 long as
another peraon was performing his dnttes.
While he was in office farther power OF
suspension was given tho President with
like provision as TO pay. He was sue-
pended. The Senate did not sec TT 10 all
wise or consent 10 the appointment OF an
other person to his place, and consequent
" on July 10, 1870, when the next session
OF the Sepate ended, he became entitled
again 10 enter on the performances Of the
duties which pretained 10 his Office. This
no did on July q, but not before. His
present claim rests not on any contract
with the Government, either express or
implied, but upon the acts oil Congress
which provide Tor his salary. We 30 held
in United States VS.. Mclean 10 U. g., 100.
To adjudge In bis favor would be 10 make
q new law, not to eniolce an old one.
Although he was lawfully in office, he was
not entitled 10 pay Or emoAuinent while
not performing its duties, because Of his
suspension.
This seems to be conclusive on the point
oisalaly wiz, theemolumentsgo the man
who does tho work, to the incumbent
de tactO, not to the incumbent dc jurc.
Tie contention Of the Senate ia Of
higher import than the question Of
salary. 1t asserts, not more boldly and
tsnaCiously than oughtto be asserted, the
right Of that body To such information as
may have been filed to justify suspension
or removal, and the subsequent appoint
ment. 1t asserts with equal force the
right Of the officer, suspended or removed
on charges, to know what these charges
are; aud 1t carries forward the idea that
the public Is entitled to the same infor.
nation. There are no arguments to con-
trovert successfully these propositions, for
they are seli.evident.