Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-03
THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.

1he recent message of the President to
The Senate amounts to this-that he holds
Inc Senate possesses neither power nor
light 10 inquire into the motives actuating
him IN removing or suspending from office.
For, he maintains, the power to remove.
supersede and supplant is one vested in the
President alone, and in It's exercise the rea-
sons that move him to action are private
and privileged, and as much right is given
him TO ask the Senate for its reasons for re-
tusai TO concur in his nominations as is
given 10 the Senate to demand of him his
reasons for removing an official. Now"
says he, "letters addressed to me on the
subject OF removal or suspension are of no
more force than oral communications,
which II would be absurd for the Senate to
demand disclosed The President makes
strong point when he asks, "What would
the Senate have done had | destroyed the
letters asked for, as might have done
without oiiense or violation of law, or in
Engagement of the right of the Senate ?" To
This the Senate replies: ''This issue is not
between this body and the President. II
demands papers on file in department
created by law The President interferes
70 prevent access to them, and thereby in
yades Senatorial prerogative. By filing
documents with a Department Secretary.
holding under a statute and amenable To
The making power, they become official.
and all official papers the Senate is en-
sitied to inspect. This is the issue as we
understand it," In one aspect it resembles
me case made in the time of President
johnson, but there is lacking the element
OF political bitterness that characterized
hat celebrated issue. Unqucstionably
Ihere are two sides having strength in the
present instance. In the light of the facts
It would appear that by the placing of the
iocuments asked for in the department
archives, the President lost his case
Clearly, had he retained them in his
own possession, they would have been on a
par with oral communications. and which
the Senate would have no right to probe
But the President flied the papers regard
ing removal of officials in an executive de-
partment, with an executive officer created
not by the Constitution, but by the ma
honal Legislature. The department and
official exist at the will of the leo
islative arm of the Government. 1t NAV
make laws to define the jurisdiction
OF the one and the duty of the other. 1t
represents the sovereign-the people-and
1t has therefore the right to inspect the
records kept by one of its creatures. But
suppose we depart from the cold line of
Legal debate, and consider the reason of the
claim OF the Senate. If the archives of
the department of Justice contain records
that justify the removal of a servant of
the Government, why should not the fact
be maize public? Or, at least, why should
not the Senate be possessed of the kpowl-
edge? If the conduct of the removed Off
cial was bad, why should it be kept secret ,
II the cause is not given for the removal
where IT is based on documentary evil
dence, is not the assumption justifable
that II was partisan cause only? If the
President has not removed the United
States District Attorney of Alabama for
mere partisanship why need he fear to
give the real reason, since the co-nartner
IN the act of filling the vacancy is neces-
sary party to the act of placing another in
the shoes of the suspended official. and
should be informed in the premises? The
truth is that the position taken by the
President, while not devoid of some stronp
points, gives ground for the suspicion that
he is yielding to the pressure brought to
bear upon him, and is giving to the victors
the spoils, despite his declaration in 1885
that partisan service should not, with him.
be taken as the measure OF claim for
Office. Il would be the easiest thing in the
world for President Cleveland to say, if ii
Is true, " removed the official because he
is unfit