National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-23
MEpsTER's ARGUMENT.

Mr.. Webster admitted that the power OF the
President to remove officers Mt Will was settled
by construction, by precedent, by practice, and
by statute. But he believed that the original
decision, by the FIRST Congress, was wrong. The
constitution did not expressly confer this
power those who maintain its existence, In
the single hands of the President, derived II
from the clause which says "the executive
power shall be vested in President" The
power of removal, II was said, was an execu-
tive power; and what are its boundarles2 lie
thought II was not the intention of the trainers
Of our written constitution TO confer II in the
lump. When speaking of executive power, did
they mean executive power as known In Eng.
land, or as In France, or as in Russa2 II differed
in all these countries. He thought they meant
that one magistrate, TO be called President,
should hold the executive authority; but they
meant, further, that he should hold II accord
ing to the grants and limitations of the oonstl-
tuition itself They did not intend q sweeping
gilt OF prerogntive, as was evident from their
proceeding Immediately after using these gem
ernl words to enumerate and define specifically
the several distinct and particular authorities
of the President.
If the power was au executive power It
must be implied from the general words. But
the power OF appointment was not left to be so
implied; why should the power of removal
have been so LEM Both were closely connect
then was one carefully expressed and defined,
and not word said about the other? Nothing
was said In the constitution about the power
of removal, because II was not a separate and
appointment, going with Il, or resulting from
it. The constitution or the laws might sepa-
rate these powers, or in prescribing the tenure
of Office, might place the officer beyond the
reach Of the appointing power But, where
officers hold their places at will, that will Is
necessarily the Will OF the appointing power,
because the exercise of the power of appoint.
ment at once displaces such Officers without
any previous act Of removal. There was no
such thing as distinct official act OF removal.
Hence II was manifest that whoever held the
Of .ts.l. l,a1I
removal. And as 1t was the President and
Senate, not the President alone, who had the
power of appointment they must, according
e the construction Of the constitution, hold
THE decision of 1885," he said, chad been
followed by strange anomaly, showing that
II did not rest on just principle. The natural
the removing power had always led the Presi.
dent TO bring about a removal by the process of
new appointment. But the Senate sometimes
rejected the new nomination, What then be;
Office, or was he still in? He had not been
turned out by any exercise OF the power OF APP
pointment, for no appointment had been made.
He had not been removed by any distinct aud
separate act of removal, for no such act had
been performed or attempted. Those, there.
fore, who maintained that the power of re-
moval existed in the President alone were
forced TO the necessity of holding that tho re-
moval had been accomplished by the mere
nomination OF successor, so that the
removing power was made incident, not
TO the appointing power, but to q part of 1t,
the nominating power The nomination,
though rendered null and void in its main
object by the non-concurrence of the Senate,
was nevertheless held to be good and valid to
bring about that which resulted from an APP.
pointment, that is, the removal of the person
actually in Office. In other words, the noml-
nation produced the consequences of an ap.
pointment, or some Of them, though 1t were
itself no appointment, and effected no ap-
pointment. This appeared to him anything
but sound reasoning and just construction
Again: a nomination to an Office already
filled, had sometimes been sent to the Senate,
and, before 1t had been acted on, withdrawn.
What was the effect of such nomination? If
mere nomination turned out m incumbent,
then he was out, whatever became OF the nomi.
nation. But the President had acted upon the
idea that q nomination made. and afterwards
withdrawn, did not remove the incumbent.
Even this was not the end of the inconsistencies
TO which the prevailing doctrine had led.
Nominations to Offices already filed had been
before the Senate for months, the incumbents
continuing TO discharge their official duties
until their successors had been confirmed, and
received their commissions. So that, II the
nominations were confirmed. the nomination
itself made no removal. The removal, then,
waited TO be brought about by the appoint.
ment; but II the nomination should be rejected,
then the nomination itself, II was commended,
had effected the removal. Who could defend
opinions which led to such resultsf'