The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1886-07-22

Richard Roe, Stephen Johnson, and |
Benedict Arnold to fill the four va !
cancies ere ated by act of Congress on
the Supreme Bench, and then in con-
clusion the act says: "And for this
purpose only are these four offices ere
ated.'' For what purpose? For the
purpose of appointing these four men,
and for no other purpose. Is there a
lawyer in the Senate of the United
States who will contend that it is not
an abridgment of the Presidents pre-
rogative, and an Infringement upon
the Constitution of the United States?
But it is said this is the appoint
ment Of Colonel in the army, What
is the difference? II Is an Office, and
the Constitution of the United States
provides in so many words that the
President Of the United States shall
nominate to the Senate, and by aud
with its advice and consent he may
appoint. So if you can dictate to the
President whom he shall appoint to
an office and at the same time declare
that if he does not fill the Office with
that name then the office shall cease,
tell me why Congress cannot appoint
the man to the office without the aid
Of the President of the United States?
1t can do so upon the very same theo-
ry that it is proposed to tell the Pres
ident an Office is created if he will put
certain man in it, and if he does not
put that man in it the office ceases.
If that is the only power or author
ity the President has, the Congress Of
the United States upon the same par
ity of reasoning can itself appoint the
man to the office without reference to
the President, for the President is
merely doing what? He is not acting
in the capacity Of President in the Sc
lection of the officer according to his
own judgment; the only capacity in
which he is acting is as the agent Of
Congress to transmit the name and
that is all, not in his capacity as Pres
ident exercising his Judgment, but
merely in the capacity Of clerk reg
istering DEGREES Of Congress by send
ing the name and for no other pur-
pose, mere clerk without Judgment
of his own being exercised in any
sense. You deprive him by this act
of the exercise of that Judgment as
President Of the United States; and
yet grave lawyers, in the Senate for
years, have stood up and said that it
is no violation of the Constitution.
| ask any lawyer in the Senate, and
| have asked the same question before,
to stand up and give me a reason for
the consistency of this position with
the Constitution of the United States,
and | have never found one to make
answer
lie when a bill violates the Consti-
tuition, Senators are so determined
that it shall be rammed down the
throats Of those who do not believe in
it, merely to have certain phrase in
the bill, they have the responsibility
of doing it. But, sir, [ have been
taught to respect the Constitution |
care not which way it cuts, and when
ever [ see it is to be violated | try at,
least to prevent it. We ought not to
be so eager, we ought not to be so
anxious to do thing to crafty some
body as to be willing to ride rough
shod over the Constitution, the Presi-
dent, and everything else.
For seventy-fve years the construc-
tion of that portion of the Constltu-
ton has been as have stated it. You
cannot find anywhere where this has
been passed upon whenever it has
been raised in the days gone by, that
it has not been given the very same
construction that [ have given it to-
day.
1t has been violated in some in
stances within recent years by putting
Captains or somebody on the retired
list. That was done over my protest
in the Senate, but it was small thing
and no one would listen for moment
to the proposition whether it violated
the Constitution. [ have frequently
called the attention of the country to
the fact which | have suggested, how
easy it is to remedy the proposition;
but no, the bill must be passed just in
these words and none other, according
to its friends desire.
Now, let me ask another question.
The Constitution provides that any
person who has incurred disabilities
under the Constitution and laws of
the United States may have those dis
abilities removed by vote Of two
two-thirds of both Houses of Con-
gress. Suppose bill is introduced in
the Congress Of the United States for
the purpose of relieving disabilities.
It is voted on. It is provided in that
bill that the person who asks to be re-
lieved of his disabilities shall be re-
lieyed of them if the President Of the
United States will do a certain act
which is indicated to him by the Con-
gress Of the United States. Would
not that be in violation Of the Con-
stitution? The Constitution provides
that it shall take two-thirds of the
votes to relieve the disabilities, but
you would make it depend upon an
act of the President instead Of the
way provided in the Constitution, and
whenever that is done it is as clearly |
a violation Of the Constitution of the
United States as If you squarely ran
against the face of it and said the
Constitution is all bosh.
So, too, when you deprive the Pres
ident of his power, the right which
he has to nominate to the Senate, you
violate the Constitution.
| might be asked what is my view
about the power Of President nomi-
mating to the Senate and the Senate
| heard the question once
asked in the Senate by lawyer
the Senate did not have a
right to consent to the appointment
Of a man to civil Office before his
name was sent in? | said no, [
thought not, because that would be
,he Senate appointing to office and
asking the President to consent, in
stead of the President nominating the
officer and asking the Senate to con-
sent. | thought that was reversal
# the proposition as it was stated in
he Constitution Rnt 7 heard that