The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-07
OVERRODE THE SENATE.
ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT IN RE
CESS APPOINTHENTS
A Postma asier at S oux Fal Who Had Been
Rejected by the Senate Reappointed.
Effect OF the Act.

| WASHINGTON, March 6.-The action OF
the President yesterday in making re-
cess appointment Of Alfred -. Tinsley 10
be postmaster at Sioux Falls, S. D., has
| caused much comment among such SEN
| ators as happened 10 be about the Cap
| itol to-day. This nomination was made
| during the second session Of the Fifty
| third Congress, and was permitted TO re-
main unacted upon until that session ad-
| journed. This was due 10 the opposition
Of Senator Pettigrew, who resides at
Sioux Falls u being an unwritten law
of the Senate that the man named for
postmaster Of the home town OF SEN
atOr must be acceptable 10 the Senate
In the debate on this case Mr.. Pettigrew
made some plain statements. chief among
them, IL is alleged. being one that the
nominee was n political enemy with
whom the South Dakota senator would
be unwilling TO trust the care Of his mail
that might pass through the office.
HOT FIGHT.
The fight against Tinsloy was quite hot
In the second session, but no action was
taken, and Immediately upon the adjourn
ment he was again nominated. The oppo-
sition of Mr.. Pcttigrew was renewed, and
on almost the last day of the session
Tinsley was rejected by very large ma
jority Of the votes cast. Having been re-
jected. this was supposed 10 be the end
Of Tinsley. but no sooner had the Senate
Adjourned than he was again gwen re-
cess appointment. which will stand good
until his case is again acted upon by the
Senate.
Senators who have looked into this
case say it has but one or two parallels
q 4
always been held that the rejection Of
nomination was the Withholding Of the
Senate's consent. and but few Presidents
have ever Overridden that decision. Grant
did It once, and so did Harrison, during
the first part Of his term
slflaT or THE LAW VIOLATED.
Senator'S claim that by carrying the mat
ter TO the point to which it has been
carried in this case the Executive is
able 20 nullify the provision Of the Con-
stitution providing for the consent OF the
Senate-a construction the Constitution.
they assert, does not justify one very
prominent Democratic senator sald IBIS
evening that while the letter Of the
law had not been violated its spirit had.
If the President saw fit to disregard the
wishes of the Senate there was no power
in the Senate TO restrain him.
one thing may, however, result, ana
that is. a rupture at the beginning Of the
next session of Congress, and vigor-
Gus demand for the recognition Of that
courtesy that senators contend belongs
10 the consenting power in the matter Of
appointments II the senator's remain,
after the nine months vacation. OF the
mind they appear to be in now, the
Tinsley case Will be made a precedent
for their future guidance i'm the matter
Of confirming or rejecting nominations
sent to the Senate. It promises 10 be-
come a celebrated case in the annals
of this Congress.
OTHER BEAPPoINTMFNTS.
The two new examiners in chief of
the patent office, Arthur j. Greedy and
John H. Brckeusteln who were nominat-
ed to the Senate to succeed Judges Bates
and Clarke, and who failed of contirma-
ton and were re-appointed by the Presi-
dent to-day, qualified for Office. They
will not assume their new duties until
April Ist Judge Bates. who rendered his
resignation upon request, Will continue
the work until that date, but Judge
Clarke, who refused TO resign, was re-
moved His duties will be attended TO by
other examiners of the Office during this
month.