Source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-337/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:48:21+00:00

Document:
Sec. 1483. Having thus considered the manner, in which the executive department is organized, the next inquiry is, as to the powers, with which it is entrusted. These, and the corresponding duties, are enumerated in the second and third sections of the second article of the constitution.
Sec. 1485. The command and application of the public force, to execute the laws, to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion, are powers so obviously of an executive nature, and require the exercise of qualities so peculiarly adapted to this department, that a well-organized government can scarcely exist, when they are taken away from it.2 Of all the cases and concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities, which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand.3 Unity of plan, promptitude, activity, and decision, are indispensable to success; and these can scarcely exist, except when a single magistrate is entrusted exclusively with the power. Even the coupling of the authority of an executive council with him, in the exercise of such powers, enfeebles the system, divides the responsibility, and not unfrequently defeats every energetic measure. Timidity, indecision, obstinacy, and pride of opinion, must mingle in all such councils, and infuse a torpor and sluggishness, destructive of all military operations. Indeed, there would seem to be little reason to enforce the propriety of giving this power to the executive department, (whatever may be its actual organization,) since it is in exact coincidence with the provisions of our state constitutions; and therefore seems to be universally deemed safe, if not vital to the system.
Sec. 1491. So far from the power of pardon being incompatible with the fundamental principles or a republic, it may be boldly asserted to be peculiarly appropriate, and safe in all free states; because the power can there be guarded by a just responsibility for its exercise.23 Little room will be left for favoritism, personal caprice, or personal resentment. If the power should ever be abused, it would be far less likely to occur in opposition, than in obedience to the will of the people. The danger is not, that in republics the victims of the law will too often escape punishment by a pardon; but that the power will not be sufficiently exerted in cases, where public feeling accompanies the prosecution, and assigns the ultimate doom to persons, who have been convicted upon slender testimony, or popular suspicions.
Sec. 1492. The power to pardon, then, being a fit one to be entrusted to all governments, humanity and sound policy dictate, that this benign prerogative should be, as little as possible, lettered, or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that, without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would assume an aspect too sanguinary and cruel. The only question is, in what department of the government it can be most safely lodged; and that must principally refer to the executive, or legislative department. The reasoning in favor of vesting it in the executive department may be thus stated. A sense of responsibility is always strongest in proportion, as it is undivided. A single person would, therefore, be most ready to attend to the force of those motives, which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law; and the least apt to yield to considerations, which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The consciousness, that the life, or happiness of an offender was exclusively within his discretion, would inspire scrupulousness and caution; and the dread of being accused of weakness, or connivance, would beget circumspection of a different sort. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from numbers, a large assembly might naturally encourage each other in acts of obduracy, as no one would feel much apprehension of public censure.24 A public body, too, ordinarily engaged in other duties, would be little apt to sift cases of this sort thoroughly to the bottom, and would be disposed to yield to the solicitations, or be guided by the prejudices of a few; and thus shelter their own acts of yielding too much, or too little, under the common apology of ignorance, or confidence. A single magistrate would be compelled to search, and act upon his own responsibility; and therefore would be at once a more enlightened dispenser of mercy, and a more firm administrator of public justice.
Sec. 1493. There are probably few persons now, who would not consider the power of pardon in ordinary cases, as best deposited with the president. But the expediency of vesting it in.him in any cases, and especially in cases of treason, was doubted at the time of adopting the constitution; and it was then urged, that it ought at least in cases of treason to be vested in one, or both branches of the legislature.25 That there are strong reasons, which may be assigned in favor of vesting the power in congress in cases of treason, need not be denied. As treason is a crime levelled at the immediate existence of society, when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender, there would seem to be a fitness in referring the expediency of an act of mercy towards him to the judgment of the legislature.26 But there are strong reasons also against it. Even in such cases a single magistrate, of prudence and sound sense, would be better fitted, than a numerous assembly, in such delicate conjunctures, to weigh the motives for and against the remission of the punishment, and to ascertain all the facts without undue influence. The responsibility would be more felt, and more direct. Treason, too, is a crime, that will often be connected with seditions, embracing a large portion of a particular community; and might under such circumstances, and especially where parties were nearly poised, find friends and favorites, as well as enemies and opponents, in the councils of the nation.27 So, that the chance of an impartial judgment might be less probable in such bodies, than in a single person at the head of the nation.
Sec. 1496. In England (from which this exception was probably borrowed) no pardon can be pleaded in bar of an impeachment. But the king may, after conviction upon an impeachment, pardon the offender. His prerogative, therefore, cannot prevent the disgrace of a conviction; but it may avert its effects, and restore the offender to his credit.31 The president possesses no such power in any case of impeachment; and, as the judgment upon a conviction extends no farther, than to a removal from office, and disqualification to hold office, there is not the same reason for its exercise after conviction, as there is in England; since (as we have seen) the judgment there, so that it does not exceed what is allowed by law, lies wholly in the breast of the house of lords, as to its nature and extent, and may, in many cases, not only reach the life, but the whole fortune of the offender.
Sec. 1503. The power of making treaties is indispensable to the due exercise of national sovereignty, and very important, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce. That it should belong to the national government would seem to be irresistibly established by every argument deduced from experience, from public policy, and a close survey of the objects of government. It is difficult to circumscribe the power within any definite limits, applicable to all times and exigencies, without impairing its efficacy, or defeating its purposes. The constitution has, therefore, made it general and unqualified. This very circumstance, however, renders it highly important, that it should be delegated in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security, that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good.41 With such views, the question was naturally presented in the convention, to what body shall it be delegated? It might be delegated to congress generally, as it was under the confederation, exclusive of the president, or in conjunction with him. It might be delegated to either branch of the legislature, exclusive of, or in conjunction with him. Or it might be exclusively delegated to the president.
Sec. 1504. In the formation of treaties, secrecy and immediate despatch are generally requisite, and sometimes absolutely indispensable. Intelligence may often be obtained, and measures matured in secrecy, which could never be done, unless in the faith and confidence of profound secrecy. No man at all acquainted with diplomacy, but must have felt, that the success of negotiations as often depends upon their being unknown by the public, as upon their justice or their policy. Men will assume responsibility in private, and communicate information, and express opinions, which they would feel the greatest repugnance publicly to avow; and measures may be defeated by the intrigues and management of foreign powers, if they suspect them to be in progress, and understand their precise nature and extent. In this view the executive department is a far better depositary of the power, than congress would be. The delays incident to a large assembly; the differences of opinion; the time consumed in debate; and the utter impossibility of secrecy, all combine to render them unfitted for the purposes of diplomacy. And our own experience during the confederation abundantly demonstrated all the evils, which the theory would lead us to expect.42 Besides; there are tides in national affairs, as well as in the affairs of private life. To discern and profit by them is the part of true political wisdom; and the loss of a week, or even of a day, may sometimes change the whole aspect of affairs, and render negotiations wholly nugatory, or indecisive. The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister, the pressure or removal of fiscal embarrassments at the moment, and other circumstances, may change the whole posture of affairs, and ensure success, or defeat the best concerted project.43 The executive, having a constant eye upon foreign affairs, can promptly meet, and even anticipate such emergencies, and avail himself of all the advantages accruing from them; while a large assembly would be coldly deliberating on the chances of success, and the policy of opening negotiations. It is manifest, then, that congress would not be a suitable depositary of the power.
Sec. 1506. On the other hand, considering the delicacy and extent of the power, it is too much to expect, that a free people would confide to a single magistrate, however respectable, the sole authority to act conclusively, as well as exclusively, upon the subject of treaties. In England, the power to make treaties is exclusively vested in the crown.45 But however proper it may be in a monarchy, there is no American statesman, but must feel, that such a prerogative in an American president would be inexpedient and dangerous.46 It would be inconsistent with that wholesome jealousy, which all republics ought to cherish of all depositaries of power; and which, experience teaches us, is the best security against the abuse of it.47 The check, which acts upon the mind from the consideration, that what is done is but preliminary, and requires the assent of other independent minds to give it a legal conclusiveness, is a restraint, which awakens caution, and compels to deliberation.
Sec. 1509. In relation to the objection. that the power ought to have been confided exclusively to the president, it may be suggested in addition to the preceding remarks, that, however safe it may be in governments, where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to entrust that power to an executive magistrate chosen for four years. It has been remarked, and is unquestionably true, that an hereditary monarch, though often the oppressor of his people, has personally too much at stake in the government to be in any material danger of corruption by foreign powers, so as to surrender any important rights or interests. But a man, raised from a private station to the rank of chief magistrate for a short period, having but a slender or moderate fortune, and no very deep Stake in the society, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice duty to interest, which it would require great virtue to withstand. If ambitious, he might be tempted to seek his own aggrandizement by the aid of a foreign power, and use the field of negotiations for this purpose. If avaricious, he might make his treachery to his constituents a vendible article at an enormous price. Although such occurrences are not ordinarily to be expected; yet the history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human nature, which would make it wise in a nation to commit its most delicate interests and momentous concerns to the unrestrained disposal of a single magistrate.53 It is far more wise to interpose checks upon the actual exercise.of the power, than remedies to redress, or punish an abuse of it.
Sec. 1510. The impropriety of delegating the power exclusively to the senate has been already sufficiently considered. And, in addition to what has been already urged against the participation of the house of representatives in it, it may be remarked, that the house of representatives is for other reasons far less fit, than ‘the senate, to be the exclusive depositary of the power, or to hold it in conjunction with the executive. In the first place, it is a popular assembly, chosen immediately from the people, and representing, in a good measure, their feelings and local interests; and it will on this account be more likely to be swayed by such feelings and interests, than the senate, chosen by the states through the voice of the state legislatures. In the next place, the house of representatives are chosen for two years only; and the internal composition of the body is constantly changing so, as to admit of less certainty in their opinions, and their measures, than would naturally belong to a body of longer duration. In the next place, the house of representatives is far more numerous, than the senate, and will be constantly increasing in numbers so, that it will be more slow in its movements, and more fluctuating in its councils. In the next place, the senate will naturally be composed of persons of more experience, weight of character, and talents, than the members of the house. Accurate knowledge of foreign politics, a steady and systematic adherence to the same views, nice and uniform sensibility to national character, as well as secrecy, decision, and despatch, are required for a due execution of the power to make treaties. And, if these are not utterly incompatible with the genius of a numerous and variable body, it must be admitted, that they will be more rarely found there, than in a more select body, having a longer duration in office, and representing, not the interests of private constituents alone, but the sovereignty of states.
Sec. 1516. Upon the whole it is difficult to perceive, how the treaty-making power could have been better deposited, with a view to its safety and efficiency. Yet it was declaimed against with uncommon energy, as dangerous to the commonwealth, and subversive of public liberty.64 Time has demonstrated the fallacy of such prophecies; and has confirmed the belief of the friends of the constitution, that it would be, not only safe, but full of wisdom and sound policy. Perhaps no stronger illustration, than this, can be found, of the facility of suggesting ingenious objections to any system, calculated to create public alarm, and to wound public confidence, which, at the same time, are unfounded in human experience, or in just reasoning.
Sec. 1518. The next part of the clause respects appointments to office. The president is to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for.
Sec. 1519. Under the confederation, an exclusive power was given to congress of “sending and receiving ambassadors.”70 The term “ambassador,” strictly construed, (as would seem to be required by the second article of that instrument,) comprehends the highest grade only of public ministers;71 and excludes those grades, which the United States would be most likely to prefer, whenever foreign embassies may be necessary. But under no latitude of construction could the term, “ambassadors,” comprehend consuls. Yet it was found necessary by congress to employ the inferior grades of ministers, and to send and receive consuls. It is true, that the mutual appointment of consuls might have been provided for by treaty; and where no treaty existed, congress might perhaps have had the authority under the ninth article of the confederation, which conferred a general authority to appoint officers managing the general affairs of the United States. But the admission of foreign consuls into the United States, when not stipulated for by treaty, was no where provided for.72 The whole subject was full of embarrassment and constitutional doubts; and the provision in the constitution, extending the appointment to other public ministers and consuls, as well as to ambassadors, is a decided improvement upon the confederation.
Sec. 1523. Those, who are accustomed to profound reflection upon the human character and human experience, will readily adopt the opinion, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities, adapted to particular offices, than any body of men of equal, or even of superior discernment.78 His sole and undivided responsibility will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty, and a more exact regard to reputation. He will inquire with more earnestness, and decide with more impartiality. He will have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men; and will be less liable to be misled by his private friendships and affections; or, at all events, his conduct will be more open to scrutiny, and less liable to be misunderstood. If he ventures upon a system of favoritism, he will not escape censure, and can scarcely avoid public detection and disgrace. But in a public body appointments will be materially influenced by party attachments and dislikes; by private animosities, and antipathies, and partialities; and will be generally founded in compromises, having little to do with the merit of candidates, and much to do with the selfish interests of individuals and cabals. They will be too much governed by local, or sectional, or party arrangements.79 A president, chosen from the nation at large, may well be presumed to possess high intelligence, integrity, and sense of character. He will be compelled to consult public opinion in the most important appointments; and must be interested to vindicate the propriety of his appointments by selections from those, whose qualifications are unquestioned, and unquestionable. If he should act otherwise, and surrender the public patronage into the hands of profligate men, or low adventurers, it will be impossible for him long to retain public favor. Nothing, no, not even the whole influence of party, could long screen him from the just indignation of the people. Though slow, the ultimate award of popular opinion would stamp upon his conduct its merited infamy. No president, however weak, or credulous, (if such a person could ever under any conjuncture of circumstances obtain the office,) would fail to perceive, or to act upon admonitions of this sort. At all events, he would be less likely to disregard them, than a large body of men, who would share the responsibility, and encourage each other in the division of the patronage of the government.
Sec. 1524. But, though these general considerations might easily reconcile us to the choice of vesting the power of appointment exclusively in the president, in preference to the senate, or house of representatives alone; the patronage of the government, and the appointments to office are too important to the public welfare, not to induce great hesitation in vesting them exclusively in the president. The power may be abused; and, assuredly, it will be abused, except in the hands of an executive of great firmness, independence, integrity, and public spirit. It should never be forgotten, that in a republican government offices are established, and are to be filled, not to gratify private interests and private attachments; not as a means of corrupt influence, or individual profit; not for cringing favorites, or court sycophants; but for purposes of the highest public good; to give dignity, strength, purity, and energy to the administration of the laws. It would not, therefore, be a wise course to omit any precaution, which, at the same time, that it should give to the president a power over the appointments of those, who are in conjunction with himself to execute the laws, should also interpose a salutary check upon its abuse, acting by way of preventive, as well as of remedy.
Sec. 1525. Happily, this difficult task has been achieved by the constitution. The president is to nominate, and thereby has the sole power to select for office; but his nomination cannot confer office, unless approved by a majority of the senate. His responsibility and theirs is thus complete, and distinct. He can never be compelled to yield to their appointment of a man unfit for office; and, on the other hand, they may withhold their advice and consent from any candidate, who in their judgment does not possess due qualifications for office. Thus, no serious abuse of the power can take place without the cooperation of two coordinate branches, of the government, acting in distinct spheres; and, if there should be any improper concession on either side, it is obvious, that from the structure and changes, incident to each department, the evil cannot long endure, and will be remedied, as it should be, by the elective franchise. The consciousness of this check will make the president more circumspect, and deliberate in his nominations for office. He will feel, that, in case of a disagreement of opinion with the senate, his principal vindication must depend upon the unexceptionable character of his nomination. And in case of a rejection, the most, that can be said, is, that he had not his first choice. He will still have a wide range of selection; and his responsibility to present another candidate, entirely qualified for the office, will be complete and unquestionable.
Sec. 1529. The other part of the clause, while it leaves to the president the appointment to all offices, not otherwise provided for, enables congress to vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they may think proper, in the president, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The propriety of this discretionary power in congress, to some extent, cannot well be questioned. If any discretion should be allowed, its limits could hardly admit of being exactly defined; and it might fairly be left to congress to act according to the lights of experience. It is difficult to foresee, or to provide for all the combinations of circumstances, which might vary the right to appoint in such cases. In one age the appointment might be most proper in the president; and in another age, in a department.
Sec. 1532. The other is a vastly important practical question; and, in an early stage of the government, underwent a most elaborate discussion.91 The language of the constitution is, that the president “shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint,” etc. The power to nominate does not naturally, or necessarily include the power to remove; and if the power to appoint does include it, then the latter belongs conjointly to the executive and the senate. In short, under such circumstances, the removal takes place in virtue of the new appointment, by mere operation of law. It results, and is not separable, from the appointment itself.
Sec. 1534. The Federalist, while denying the existence of the power, admits by the clearest implication the full force of the argument, thus addressed to such a state of executive prerogative. Its language is: “The consent of that body (the senate) would be necessary to displace, as well as to appoint. A change of the chief magistrate, therefore, could not occasion so violent, or so general a revolution in the officers of the government, as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new president would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person, more agreeable to him, by the apprehension, that a discountenance of the senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself. Those, who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision, which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body, which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will, in all probability, be less subject to inconstancy, than any other member of the government.”94 No man can fail to perceive the entire safety of the power of removal if it must thus be exercised in conjunction with the senate.
Sec. 1537. That the final decision of this question so made was greatly influenced by the exalted character of the president, then in office, was asserted at the time, and has always been believed. Yet the doctrine was opposed, as well as supported, by the highest talents and patriotism of the country. The public, however, acquiesced in this decision; and it constitutes, perhaps, the most extraordinary case in the history of the government of a power, conferred by implication on the executive by the assent of a bare majority of congress, which has not been questioned on many other occasions.100 Even the most jealous advocates of state rights seem to have slumbered over this vast reach of authority; and have left it untouched, as the neutral ground of controversy, in which they desired to reap no harvest, and from which they retired without leaving any protestations of title or contest.101 Nor is this general acquiescence and silence without a satisfactory explanation. Until a very recent period, the power had been exercised in few cases, and generally in such, as led to their own vindication. During the administration of President Washington few removals were made, and none without cause; few were made in that of the first President Adams. In that of President Jefferson the circle was greatly enlarged; but yet it was kept within narrow bounds, and with an express disclaimer of the right to remove for differences of opinion, or otherwise, than for some clear public good. In the administrations of the subsequent presidents, Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams, a general moderation and forbearance were exercised with the approbation of the country, and without disturbing the harmony of the system. Since the induction into office of President Jackson, an opposite course has been pursued, and a system of removals and new appointments to office has been pursued so extensively, that it has reached a very large proportion of all the offices of honor and profit in the civil departments of the country. This is matter of fact; and beyond the statement of the fact102 it is not the intention of the Commentator to proceed. This extraordinary change of system has awakened general attention, and brought back the whole controversy, with regard to the executive power of removal, to a severe scrutiny. Many of the most eminent statesmen in the country have expressed a deliberate opinion, that it is utterly indefensible, and that the only sound interpretation of the constitution is that avowed upon its adoption; that is to say, that the power of removal belongs to the appointing power.
Sec. 1538. Whether the predictions of the original advocates of the executive power, or those of the opposers of it, are likely, in the future progress of the government, to be realized, must be left to the sober judgment of the community, and to the impartial award of time. If there has been any aberration from the true constitutional exposition of the power of removal, (which the reader must decide for himself,) it will be difficult, and perhaps impracticable, after forty years experience, to recall the practice to the correct theory. But at all events, it will be a consolation to those, who love the Union, and honor a devotion to the patriotic discharge of duty, that in regard to “inferior officers,” (which appellation probably includes ninety-nine out of a hundred of the lucrative offices in the government,) the remedy for any permanent abuse is still within the power of congress, by the simple expedient of requiring the consent of the senate to removals in such cases.
Sec. 1539. Another point of great practical importance is, when the appointment of any officer is to be deemed complete. It will be seen in a succeeding clause, that the president is to “commission all the officers of the United States.” In regard to officers, who are removable at the will of the executive, the. point is unimportant, since they may be displaced, and their commission arrested at any moment. But if the officer is not so removable, the time, when the appointment is complete, becomes of very deep interest.
Sec. 1540. This subject was very elaborately discussed in the celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison.103 Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia for five years, according to an act of congress, by President Adams, by and with the consent of the senate. His commission had been signed by the president, and was sealed, and deposited in the department of state at the time of Mr. Jefferson’s accession to the presidency; and was afterwards withheld from him by the direction of the latter. An act of congress had directed the secretary of state to keep the seal of the United States; and to make out, and record, and affix the seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by the president, after he should have signed the same. Upon the fullest deliberation, the court were of opinion, that, when a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is final and complete. The officer appointed has, then, conferred on him legal rights, which cannot be resumed. Until that, the discretion of the president may be exercised by him, as to the appointment; but, from that moment, it is irrevocable. His power over the office is then terminated in all cases, where by law the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the absolute, unconditional power of accepting, or rejecting it. Neither a delivery of the commission, nor an actual acceptance of the office, is indispensable to make the appointment perfect.
Sec. 1542. “These are the clauses of the constitution and laws of the United States, which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct operations: (l.) The nomination. This is the sole act of the president, and is completely voluntary. (2.) The appointment. This is also the act of the president; and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the senate. (3.) The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. ‘He shall,’ says that instrument, ‘commission all the officers of the United States.’ The acts of appointing to office, and commissioning the person appointed, can scarcely be considered as one and the same; since the power to perform them is given in two separate and distinct sections of the constitution. The distinction between the appointment and the commission will be rendered more apparent, by adverting to that provision in the second section of the second article of the constitution, which authorizes congress ‘to vest, by law, the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments;’ thus contemplating cases, where the law may direct the president to commission an officer appointed by the courts, or by the heads of departments. In such a case, to issue a commission would be apparently a duty distinct from the appointment, the performance of which, perhaps, could not legally be refused. Although that clause of the constitution, which requires the president to commission all the officers of the United States, may never have been applied to officers appointed otherwise, than by himself; yet it would be difficult to deny the legislative power to apply it to such cases. Of consequence the constitutional distinction between the appointment to an office, and the commission of an officer, who has been appointed, remains the same, as if in practice the president had commissioned officers appointed by an authority, other than his own. It follows, too, from the existence of this distinction, that, if an appointment was to be evidenced by any public act, other than the commission, the performance of such public act would create the officer; and, if he was not removable at the will of the president, would either give him a right to his commission, or enable him to perform the duties without it. These observations are premised solely for the purpose of rendering more intelligible those, which apply more directly to the particular case under consideration.
Sec. 1543. “This is an appointment made by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself. In such a case, therefore, the commission and the appointment seem inseparable; it being almost impossible to show an appointment otherwise, than by proving the existence of a commission. Still the commission is not necessarily the appointment; though conclusive evidence of it. But at what stage does it amount to this conclusive evidence? The answer to this question seems an obvious one. The appointment, being the sole act of the president, must be completely evidenced, when it is shown, that he has done every thing to be performed by him. Should the commission, instead of being evidence of an appointment, even be considered as constituting the appointment itself; still, it would be made, when the last act to be done by the president was performed, or at farthest, when the commission was complete. The last act to be done by the president, is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the senate to his own nomination. The time for deliberation has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act; and being the last act required from the person making it, necessarily excludes the idea of its being, so far as respects the appointment, an inchoate and incomplete transaction. Some point of time must be taken, when the power of the executive over .an officer, not removable at his will, must cease. That point of time must be, when the constitutional power of appointment has been exercised. And this power has been exercised, when the last act, required from the person possessing the power, has been performed. This last act is the signature of the commission. This idea seems to have prevailed with the legislature, when the act passed, converting the department of foreign affairs into the department of state. By that act it is enacted, that the secretary of state shall keep the seal of the United States, ‘and shall make out and record, and shall affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by the president:’ ‘Provided, that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission, before the same shall have been signed by the president of the United States; nor to any other instrument or act, without the special warrant of the president therefor.’ The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission; and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument, which is complete. It attests, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the presidential signature. It is never to be affixed, till the commission all the weight, which it appears possible to give them, is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence, that the appointment is made. The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the secretary of state is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the president. He is to affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it. This is not a proceeding, which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible; but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the president. It is a ministerial act, which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose. If it should be supposed, that the solemnity of affixing the seal is necessary, not only to the validity of the commission, but even to the completion of an appointment; still, when the seal is affixed, the appointment is made, and the commission is valid. No other solemnity is required by law; no other act is to be performed on the part of government. All, that the executive can do to invest the person with his office, is done; and unless the appointment be then made, the executive cannot make one without the cooperation of others. After searching anxiously for the principles, on which a contrary opinion may be supported, none have been found, which appear of sufficient force to maintain the opposite doctrine. Such, as the imagination of the court could suggest, have been very deliberately examined, and after allowing them they do not shake the opinion, which has been formed.
Sec. 1544. “In considering this question, it has been conjectured, that the commission may have been assimilated to a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential. This idea is founded on the supposition, that the commission is not merely evidence of an appointment, but is itself the actual appointment; a supposition by no means unquestionable. But, for the purpose of examining this objection fairly, let it be conceded, that the principle claimed for its support is established. The appointment being, under the constitution, to be made by the president personally, the delivery of the deed of appointment, if necessary to its completion, must be made by the president also. It is not necessary, that the livery should be made personally to the grantee of the office. It never is so made. The law would seem to contemplate, that it should be made to the secretary of state, since it directs the secretary to affix the seal to the commission, after it shall have been signed by the president. If, then, the act of livery be necessary to give validity to the commission, is has been delivered, when executed and given to the secretary for the purpose of being sealed, recorded, and transmitted to the party. But in all cases of letters patent, certain solemnities are required by law, which solemnities are the evidences of the validity of the instrument. A formal delivery to the person is not among them. In cases of commissions the sign manual of the president, and the seal of the United States, are those solemnities. This objection, therefore, does not touch the case.
Sec. 1545. “It has also occurred, as possible, and barely possible, that the transmission of the commission, and the acceptance thereof, might be deemed necessary to complete the right of the plaintiff. The transmission of the commission is a practice directed by convenience, but not by law. It cannot therefore be necessary to constitute the appointment, which must precede it, and which is the mere act of the president. If the executive required, that every person, appointed to an office, should himself take means to procure his commission, the appointment would not be the less valid on that account. The appointment is the sole act of the president; the transmission of the commission is the sole act of the officer, to whom that duty is assigned, and may be accelerated, or retarded by circumstances, which can have no influence on the appointment. A commission is transmitted to a person already appointed; not to a person to be appointed, or not, as the letter enclosing the commission should happen to get into the post office, and reach him in safety, or to miscarry.
Sec. 1546. “It may have some tendency to elucidate this point, to inquire, whether the possession of the original commission be indispensably necessary to authorize a person, appointed to any office, to perform the duties of that office. If it was necessary, then a loss of the commission would lose the office. Not only negligence, but accident or fraud, fire or theft, might deprive an individual of his office. In such a case, I presume, it could not be doubted, but that a copy from the record of the office of the secretary of state would be, to every intent and purpose, equal to the original. The act of congress has expressly made it so. To give that copy validity, it would not he necessary to prove, that the original had been transmitted, and afterwards lost. The copy would be complete evidence, that the original had existed, and that the appointment had been made; but, not that the original had been transmitted. If, indeed, it should appear, that the original had been mislaid in the office of state, that circumstance would not affect the operation of the copy. When all the requisites have been performed, which authorize a recording officer to record any instrument whatever, and the order for that purpose has been given, the instrument is, in law, considered as recorded, although the manual labor of inserting it in a book kept for that purpose may not have been performed. In the ease of commissions, the law orders the secretary of state to record them. When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given; and whether inserted in the book, or not, they are in law recorded. A copy of this record is declared equal to the original, and the fees, to be paid by a person requiring a copy, are ascertained by law. Can a keeper of a public record erase therefrom a commission, which has been recorded? Or can he refuse a copy thereof to a person demanding it on the terms prescribed by law? Such a copy would, equally with the original, authorize the justice of peace to proceed in the performance of his duty, because it would, equally with the original, attest his appointment.
Sec. 1551. The propriety of this grant is so obvious, that it can require no elucidation. There was but one of two courses to be adopted; either, that the senate should be perpetually in session, in order to provide for the appointment of officers; or, that the president should be authorized to make temporary appointments during the recess, which should expire, when the senate should have had an opportunity to act on the subject. The former course would have been at once burdensome to the senate, and expensive to the public. The latter combines convenience, promptitude of action, and general security.
Sec. 1558. On the other hand, the duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.” The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offense, or defense; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.
1. See Journal of Convention, 225, 295, 362, 383.
2. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 264; 3 Elliot’s Deb. 103.
3. The Federalist, No 74; 3 Elliot’s Debates, 103.
4. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 365. See also 3 Elliot’s Debates, 108.
5. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 366.
6. 3 Elliot’s Debates, 103.
7. 3 Elliot’s Debates, 103; 1 Black. Comm. 262, 408 to 421.
8. 1 Black. Comm. 262, 263.
9. During the war with Great Britain in 1812, it was questioned, whether the president could delegate his right to command the militia, by authorizing another officer to command them, when they were called into the public service. (8 Mass, Reports, 548, 550.) If he cannot, this extraordinary result would follow, that if different detachment, of militia were called out, he could not, except in person, command any of them; and if they were to act together, no officer could be appointed to command them in his absence. In the Pennsylvania insurrection, in 1794, President Washington called out the militia of the adjacent states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, as well as of Pennsylvania, and all the troops, so called out, acted under the orders of the governor of Virginia, on whom the president conferred the chief command during his absence. Rawle on the Const. ch. 20, p. 193. It was a practical affirmation of the authority, and was not contested. See also 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 8, p. 580, 584, 588, 589.
10. The Federalist, No. 74. See Journal of Convention, 225, 326, 342.
11. Mr. Jefferson has informed us, that in Washington’s administration, for measures of importance, or difficulty. a consultation was held with the heads of the departments, either assembled, or by taking their opinions separately in conversation, or in writing. In his own administration, he followed the practice of assembling the heads of departments, as a cabinet council. But he has added, that he thinks the course of requiring the separate opinion in writing of each bead of a department is most strictly in the spirit of the constitution; for the other does, in fact, transform the executive into a directory. 4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 143, 144.
12. Beccaria, ch. 46; l Kent. Comm. Leek 13, p. 265; 4 Black. Comm. 307; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 193 to 198.
13. 4 Black. Comm. 397.
14. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 265.
15. Mr. Chancellor Kent has placed the general reasoning in a just light. “Were it possible,” says he “in every instance, to maintain a just proportion between the crime and the penalty, and were the rules of testimony and the mode of trial so perfect, as to preclude mistake, or injustice, there would be some colour for the admission of this (Beccaria’s) plausible theory. But even in that case policy would sometimes require a remission of a punishment, strictly due for a crime certainly ascertained. The very notion of mercy implies the accuracy of the claims of justice.”a What should we say of a government, which purported to act upon mere human justice, excluding all operations of mercy in all cases? An inexorable government would scarcely be more praiseworthy, than a despotism. It would be intolerable and unChristian.
a. Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 265.
16. Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 6, ch. 5.
17. 4 Black. Comm. 397, 398.
19. Montesq. B. 6, ch. 5.
20. Mr. Rawle’s Remarks upon this subject are peculiarly valuable, from their accuracy, philosophical spirit, and clearness of statement. Rawle on Const. ch. 17, p. 174 to 177.
21. 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 331; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 193 to 200.
22. Bacon’s Abridg. Court of Exchequer, B.
23. Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 266.
24. The Federalist, No. 74. See 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 198 to 200.
25. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 366; The Federalist, No. 74.
26. The Federalist, No. 74.
27. The Federalist, No. 74; Rawle on Const. ch. 17, p. 178.
28. The Federalist, No. 74; 3 Elliot’s Debates, 105, 106, 107.
29. The Federalist, No. 64; 3 Elliot’s Debates, 105, 106; 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 331.
30. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 266.
31. 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 331, 332; 4 Black. Comm. 399, 400. See also Rawle on Const. ch. 17, p. 176; ch. 31, p. 293, 294.
32. Rawle on Constitution, ch. 17, p. 177.
33. Act of 3d of March, 1797, ch. 67; Act of 11th of Feb. 1800, ch. 6.
34. Instances of the exercise of this power by the president, in remitting fines and penalties in cases, not within the scope of the laws giving authority to the treasury department, have repeatedly occurred; and their obligatory force has never been questioned.
35. Journal of Convention, p. 225, 316, 339, 341, 342, 343, 362; The Federalist, No. 75.
37. The Federalist, No. 42.
38. See 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 8, p. 659 to 659.
39. See Woodeson’s Elem. of Jurisp. p. 51.
40. See l Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 332, 333; Rawle on Const. ch. 7, p. 63 to 76; 2 Elliot’s Deb. 368, 369 to 379; Journal of Convention, p. 342; 4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 2, 3. — Mr. Jefferson seems at one time to have thought, that the constitution only meant to authorize the president and senate to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any power they might constitutionally exercise. At the same time, he admits, that he was sensible of the weak points of this position. 4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 498. What are such powers given to the president and senate? Could they make appointments by treaty?
41. The Federalist, No. 64.
42. The Federalist, No. 64.
44. The Federalist, No. 75.
45. 1 Black. Comm. 957; The Federalist, No. 69.
46. The Federalist, No. 75.
48. The Federalist, No. 75.
50. The Federalist, No. 64.
51. See 2 Elliot’s Debates, 367 to 379.
52. The Federalist, No. 75.
53. The Federalist, No. 75.
54. The Federalist, No. 64, 75. — In the convention a proposition was made to add the house to the senate, in advising and consenting to treaties. But it was rejected by the vote of ten states against one. Journ. of Convention, 339, 340.
55. 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 338, 339.
56. Journ. of Convention, 226, 395, 326, 341, 342.
57. See Vol. II. § 524, et seq.
58. The Federalist, No. 75.
59. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 367 to 379.
60. The Federalist, No. 75; Id. No. 22.
61. Ibid. and 1 Elliot’s Debates, 44, 45.
62. The Federalist, No. 75, 22; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 368. — In the convention a proposition to require the assent of two thirds of all the members of the senate was rejected by the vote of eight states against three. Another to require, that no treaty shall be made, unless two thirds of the whole number of senators were present, was also rejected by the vote of six states against five. Another, to require a majority of all the members of the senate to make a treaty, was also rejected by the vote of six states against five. Another, to require, that all the members should be summoned, and have time to attend, shared a like fate, by the vote of eight states against three. Journal of Convention, 343, 344.
63. See also the opinion of Iredell J. in Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 272 to 276.
64. 2 Elliot’s Debates, 367 to 379.
65. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 2, p. 223.
66. Executive Journal, 11th August, 1790, p. 60, 61.
67. Rawle on Const. ch. 7, p. 63.
68. Rawle on Const. ch. 7, p. 63, 64. — Before the ratification of treaties, it is common for the senate to require, and. for the president to lay before them, all the official documents respecting the negotiations, to assist their judgment. But the house of representatives have no constitutional right to insist on the production of them; and it is matter of discretion with the president, whether to comply, or not, with the demand of the house, which is but in the nature of a request. In the case of the British Treaty of 1794, President Washington refused to lay the papers before the house of representatives, when requested by them so to do. See his Massager 24th of March, 1796; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 334; 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 8, p. 654; 4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 464, 465; Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 171.
In the early part of President Washington’s administration, he occasionally met the senate in person, to confer with them on the executive business confided to them by the constitution. But this practice was found very inconvenient, and was soon abandoned. In June, 1853, the senate appointed a committee to hold a conference with President Madison, respecting his nomination of a minister to Sweden, then before them for ratification. Bat he declined it, considering, that it was incompatible with the due relations between the executive, and other departments of the government.b It is believed, that the practice has been ever since abandoned. Mr. Jefferson and the cabinet, (with the exception of Mr. Hamilton,) in President Washington’s administration, seem to have been of opinion, that neither branch of the legislature had a right to call upon the heads of departments, except through calls on the president for information or papers. (4 Jefferson’s ‘Corresp. 463, 461, 465.) The practice has, however, of late years, settled down in favor of making direct calls on the heads of the departments. Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 171, 172.
b. Sergeant on Const. ch. 31, (2d edition,) p. 371; 5 Niles’s Register, 213 290: Id. 276, 340; 2 Executive Journal, 354, 381, 382. See also 2 Executive Journal, 353, 354, 388, 383.
69. Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 20, p. 194, 195; 4 Jefferson’s Correspondence, 317, 318.
71. An enumeration of the various grades and powers or foreign ministers property belongs to a treatise on public law. The learned reader, however, will find ample information in the treatises of Grotius, Vattel, Martens, and Wiequefort.
72. The Federalist, No. 49.
73. Journ. of Convention, p. 225.
75. Id. 325, 326, 340, 362.
76. See The Federalist, No. 76, 77.
78. The Federalist, No. 76; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 191, 199.
79. The Federalist, No. 76.
80. The Federalist, No. 76, 77; 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 13, p. 269; Rawle on Const. ch. 14, p. 162, etc.; 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 340 to 343. — The whole reasoning of the Federalist, on this subject, is equally striking for its sound practical sense and its candour. I have freely used it in the foregoing summary. The Federalist, No. 76.
81. Rawle on Const. ch. 14, p. 164.
82. A practical question of some importance arose soon after the constitution was adopted, in regard to the appointment of foreign ministers; whether the power of the senate over the appointment gave that body a right to inquire into the policy of making any such appointment, or instituting any mission; or whether their power was confined to the consideration of the mere fitness of the person nominated for the office. If the former were the true interpretation of the senatorial authority, then they would have a right to inquire into the motives, which should induce the president to create such a diplomatic mission. It was after debate decided by a small majority of the senate, in 1792, that they had no right to enter upon the consideration of the policy, or fitness of the mission. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 5, p. 370, note. But the senate have on several occasions since that time decided the other way; and particularly in regard to missions to Russia and Turkey.
83. The Federalist, No. 77.
84. Whether the senate should have a negative on presidential appointments, was a question, upon which the members of the convention were much divided. Mr. John Adams (afterwards president) was opposed to it; and a friendly correspondence took place between him and Mr. Roger Sherman, of Connecticut. (one of the framers of the constitution, ) upon the subject. I extract from Mr. Pitkin’s valuable History of the United States, the substance of the arguments urged on each side, as they present a general view of the reasoning, which had influence in the convention.
“To some general observations of Mr. Sherman in favor of this power in the senate, Mr. Adams made the following objections.
“‘The negative of the senate upon appointments,’ he said ‘is liable to the following objections.
“‘1. It takes away, or at least it lessens the responsibility of the executive – our constitution obliges me to say, that it lessens the responsibility of the president. The blame of an hasy, injudicious, weak, or wicked appointment, is shared so much between him and the senate, that his part of it will be too small. Who can censure him, without censuring the senate, and the legislatures who appoint them? all their friends will be interested to vindicate the president, in order to screen them from censure; besides, if an impeachment is brought before them against an officer, are they not interested to acquit him, lest some part of the odium of his guilt should fall upon them, who advised to his appointment?
“‘2. It turns the minds and attention of the people to the senate, a branch of the legislature, in executive matters; it interests another branch of the legislature in the management of the executive; it divides the people between the executive sad the senate: whereas all the people ought to be united to watch the executive, to oppose its encroachments, and resist its ambition. Senators and representatives, and their constituents – in short, the aristocratical and democratical divisions of society, ought to be united, on all occasions, to oppose the executive or the monarchical branch, when it attempts to overleap its limits. But how can this union be effected, when the aristocratical branch has pledged its reputation to the executive by consenting to an appointment?
“‘3. It has a natural tendency, to excite ambition in the senate. An active. ardent spirit, in that house, who is rich, and able, has a great reputation and influence, will be solicited by candidates for office; not to introduce the idea of bribery, because, though it certainly would force itself in, in other countries, and will probably here, when we grow populous and rich, yet it is not yet, I hope, to be dreaded. But ambition must come in, already. A senator of great influence will be naturally ambitious, and desirous of increasing his influence. Will he not be under a temptation to use his influence with the president, as well as his brother senators, to appoint persons to office in the several states, who will exert themselves in elections to get out his enemies or opposers, both in senate and house of representatives, and to get in his friends, perhaps his instruments? Suppose a senator, to aim at the treasury office, for himself, his brother, father, or son. Suppose him to aim at the president’s chair, or vice president’s, at the next election – or at the office of war, foreign or domestic affairs, will he not naturally be tempted to make use of his whole patronage, his whole influence, in advising to appointments, both with president and senators, to get such persons nominated, as will exert themselves in elections of president, vice president, senators, and house of representatives, to increase his interests, and promote his views? In this point of view, I am very apprehensive, that this defect in our constitution will have an unhappy tendency to introduce corruption of the grossest kinds, both of ambition and avarice, into all our elections. And this will be the worst of poisons to our constitution; it will not only destroy the present form of government, but render it almost impossible to substitute in its place any free government, even a better limited monarchy, or any other, than a despotism, or a simple monarchy.
“‘4. To avoid the evil under the last head, it will be in danger of dividing the continent into two or three nations, a case that presents no prospect but of perpetual war.
“‘5. This negative on appointments is in danger of involving the senate in reproach, obloquy, censure, and suspicion, without doing any good. Will the senate use their negative or not? – if not, why should they have it? – many will censure them for not using it – many will ridicule them, call them servile, etc., if they do use it. The very first instance of it will expose the senators to the resentment, not only of the disappointed candidate and all his friends, but of the president and all his friends; and those will be most of the officers of government, through the nation.
“‘6. We shall very soon have parties formed – a court and country party – and these parties will have names given them; one party in the house of representatives will support the president and his measures and ministers – the other will oppose them – a similar party will be in the senate – these parties will struggle with all their art, perhaps with intrigue, perhaps with corruption at every election to increase their own friends, and diminish their opposers. Suppose such parties formed in the senate, and then consider what factions, divisions, we shall have there, upon every nomination.
“‘7. The senate have not time. You are of opinion, “that the concurrence of the senate in the appointment to office will strengthen the bands of the executive, and secure the confidence of the people, much better than a select council, and will be less expensive,” but in every one of these ideas, I have the misfortune to differ from you. It will weaken the hands of the executive, by lessening the obligation, gratitude, and attachment of the candidate to the president, by dividing his attachment between the executive and legislature, which are natural enemies.
“‘Officers of government, instead of having a single eye, and undivided attachment to the executive branch, as they ought to have, consistent with law and the constitution, will be constantly tempted to be factious with their factious patrons in the senate. The president’s own officers, in a thousand instances, will oppose his just and constitutional exertions, and screen themselves under the wings of their patrons and party in the legislature. Nor will it secure the confidence of the people; the people will have more confidence in the executive, in executive matters, than in the senate. The people will be constantly jealous of factious schemes in the senators to unduly influence the executive, and of corrupt bargains between the senate and executive, to serve each other’s private views. The people will also be jealous, that the influence of the senate will be employed to conceal, connive, and defend guilt in executive officers, instead of being a guard and watch upon them, and a terror to them – a council selected by the president himself, at his pleasure, from among the senators, representatives, and nation at large, would be purely responsible – in that case, the senate, as a body, would not be compromised. The senate would be a terror to privy councillors – its honor would never be pledged to support any measure or instrument of the executive, beyond justice, law, and the constitution. Nor would a privy, council be more expensive. The whole senate must now deliberate on every appointment, and, if they ever find time for it, you will find that a great deal of time will be required and consumed in thin service. Then the president might have a constant executive council; now he has none.
“‘I said, under the seventh head, that the senate would not have time. You will find, that the whole business of this. government will be infinitely delayed, by this negative of the senate on treaties and appointments. Indian treaties and consular conventions have been already waiting for months, and the senate have not been able to find a moment of time to attend to them; and this evil must constantly increase, so that the senate must be constantly sitting, and must be paid as long as they sit.
“To these remarks Mr. Sherman replied, that he esteemed ‘the provision made for appointments to office to be a matter of very great importance, on which the liberties and safety of the people depended, nearly as much as on legislation. If that was vested in the president alone, he might render himself despotic. It was a saying of one of the kings of England, “that while the king could appoint the bishops and judges, he might have what religion and laws he pleased.” To give that observation its full effect, they most hold their offices during his pleasure; by such appointments, without control, a power might be gradually established, that would be more formidable than a standing army.
“‘It appears to me, that the senate is the most important branch in the government, for the aid and support of the executive, for securing the rights of the individual states, the government of the United States, and the liberties of the people. The executive is not to execute its own will, but the will of the legislature declared by the laws, and the senate, being a branch of the legislature, will be disposed to accomplish that end, and advise to such appointments, as will be most likely to effect it; from their knowledge of the people in the several states, they can give the best information who are qualified for office. And they will, as you justly observe, in some degree lessen his responsibility; yet, will he not have as much remaining as he can well support? and may not their advice enable him to make such judicious appointments, as to render responsibility less necessary? no person can deserve censure, when he acts honestly according to his best discretion.
“‘The senators, being chosen by the legislatures of the states, and depending on them for reelection, will naturally be watchful to prevent any infringement of the rights of the states. And the government of the United States being federal, and instituted by a number of sovereign states for the better security of their rights, and advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it, and by the exercise of the state governments, peace and good order may be preserved in the places most remote from the seat of the federal government, as well as at the centre.
“‘I believe this will be a better balance to secure the government, than three independent negatives would be.
“‘I think you admit, in your Defense of the Governments of the United States, that even one branch might serve in .a diplomatic government, like that of the Union; but I think the constitution is much improved by the addition of another branch, and those of the executive and judiciary. This seems to be an improvement on federal government, beyond what has been made by any other states. I can see nothing in the constitution, that will tend to its dissolution, except the article for making amendments.
“‘That the evils, that you suggest, may happen in consequence of the power vested in the senate, to aid the executive, appears to me to be but barely possible. The senators, from the provision made for their appointment, will commonly be some of the most respectable citizens in the states, for wisdom and probity, and superior to faction, intrigue, or low artifice to obtain appointments for themselves, or their friends, and any attempts of that kind would destroy their reputation with a free and enlightened people, and so frustrate the end they would have in view. Their being candidates for reelection will probably be one of the most powerful motives (next to that of their virtue) to fidelity in office, and by that means alone would they hope for success. “He that walketh uprightly, walketh surely,” is the saying of a divinely inspired writer – they will naturally have the confidence of the people, as they will be chosen by their immediate representatives, as well as from their characters, as men of wisdom and integrity. And I see not why all the branches of government should not harmonize in promoting the great end of their institution. the good and happiness of the people.
c. 2 Pitkin’s Hist. p. 285 to 291.
86. It is truly surprising, that, while the learned commentator on Blackstone hag been so feelingly alive to all other exertions of national power and patronage, this source of patronage should not have drawn from him a single remark, except of commendation. 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 264, 341, 342.
87. 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 511, 512.
88. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 155.
90. In the debate.in 1789 upon the bill for organizing the department for foreign affairs, (the department of state,) the very question was discussed; and the fired vote seems to have expressed the sense of the legislature. that the power of removal by the executive could not be abridged by the legislature; st least, not in cases, where the power to appoint was not subject to legislative delegation. See 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 3. p. 196 to 200; 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 851 to 366; Id. 450, 480 to 600; 2 Lloyd’s Debates, 1 to 12.
91. 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 351, 366, 450, 480 to 600; 2 Lloyd’s Debates, 1 to 12; 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 3, p. 196 to 200.
92. The Federalist, No. 77.
93. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 3, p. 198; 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 351, 366, 450, 480 to 600.
94. The Federalist, No. 77.
95. 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 351, 366, 450, 480 to 600; 2 Lloyd’s Debates, 1 to 12; 4 Elliot’s Debates, 141 to 207; 5 Marsh. Life of Washington, ch. 3, p. 196 to 200.
96. Mr. Madison, 1 Lloyd’s Debates, 503.
98. 5 Marsh. Life of Washington, ch. 3, p. 199; I Lloyd’s Debates, 599; 2 Lloyd’s Debates, 19.
99. Senate Journal, July 18, 1789, p. 42.
100. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 14, p. 289, 290.
101. Mr. Tucker in his Commentaries on Blackstone scarcely alludes to it. (See 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 341.) On the other hand, Mr. Chancellor Kent has spoken on it with becoming freedom and pertinence of remark. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 14, p. 289, 290.
102. In proof of this statement, lest it should be questioned, it is proper to say, that a list of removals (confessedly imperfect) between the 4th of March, 1829, when President Jackson came into office, and the 4th of March, 1830, has been published, by which it appears, that, during that period, there were removed, eight persons in the diplomatic corps; thirty-six in the executive departments; and in the other civil departments including consuls, marshals, district attorneys, collectors, and other officers of the customs, registers and receivers, one hundred and ninety-nine persons. These officers include a very large proportion of all the most lucrative offices under the national government. Besides these, there were removals in the post-office department, during the same period, of four hundred and ninety-one persons. (See Mr. Post-Master General Barry’s Report of 24th of March, 1830.) This statement will be found in the National Intelligence of the 27th of Sept, 1832, with the names of the parties (except post-masters;) and I am not aware, that it has ever been denied to be correct. It is impossible for me to vouch for its entire accuracy. It is not probable, that, from the first organization of the government, in 1789, down to 1829, the aggregate of all the removals made amounted to one third of this number. In President Washington’s administration of eight years, only nine removals took place. See Mr. Clayton’s Speech in the Senate, on the 4th of March 1830.
103. 1 Cranch’s R. 137; S. C. 1 Peters’s Cond. R. 270.
104. See also Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 14, p. 166; Sergeant on Constitution, ch. 29, [ch. 31.] — The reasoning of this opinion would seem to be, in a judicial view, absolutely irresistible; and, as such, received at the time a very general approbation from the profession. It was, however, totally disregarded by President Jefferson, who, on this, as on other occasions, placed his right of construing the constitution and laws, as wholly above, and independent of judicial decision. In his correspondence, he repeatedly alluded to this subject, and endeavored to vindicate his conduct. In one of his letters he says, “In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared, that commissions, signed and sealed by the president, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is, as yet, no deed; it is in posse only, but not in esse; and I withheld the delivery of the commission. They cannot issue a mandamus to the president, or legislature, or to any of their officers.”d It is true, that the constitution does not authorize the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus in the exercise of original jurisdiction, as was the case in Marbury v. Madison; and it was so decided by the Supreme Court. But the Act of Congress of 1789, ch. 20, § 13, had actually conferred the very power on the Supreme Court., by providing, that the Supreme Court shall have power “to issue writs of mandamus, etc. to any courts appointed, or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.” So, that the Supreme Court, in declining jurisdiction, in effect declared, that the act of congress was, in this re-spect, unconstitutional. But no lawyer could doubt, that congress might confer the power on any other court; and the Supreme Court itself might issue a mandamus in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But the whole argument of President Jefferson proceeds on an assumption, which is not proved. He says, delivery is essential to a deed. But, assuming this to be correct in all cases, it does not establish, that a commission is essential to every appointment, or that a commission must, by the constitution, be by a deed; or that an appointment to office is not complete, before the commission is sealed, or delivered. The question is not, whether a deed at the common law is perfect without a delivery; but whether an appointment under the constitution is perfect without a delivery of a commission. If a delivery were necessary, when the president had signed the commission, and delivered it to the secretary to be sealed and recorded, such delivery would be sufficient, for it is the final act required to be done by the president. But, in point of fact, the seat is not the seal of the president, but of the United States. The commission, sealed by the president, is not his deed; and it does not take effect, as his deed. It is merely a verification of his act by the highest evidence. The doctrine, then, of deeds of private persons, at the common law, is inapplicable. It is painful to observe in President Jefferson’s writings, the constant insinuations against public men and public bodies, who differ from his own opinions or measures, of being governed by improper or unworthy motives, or mere party spirit. The very letters here cited (4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 75, 317, 372) afford illustrations, not to be mistaken; and certainly diminish the value, which might otherwise be attributed to his criticisms.
d. 4 Jefferson’s Corresp. 317; Id. 75; Id. 372, 373.
105. See Johnson v. United States, 5 Mason’s R. 425, 438, 439.
106. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch’s R. 137; S.C. 1 Peters’s Cond. R. 270.
107. See Johnson v. United States, 5 Mason’s R. 425, 438, 439; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 4 Wheat. R. 733, 734.
108. Journal of Convention, 225, 341.
109. The Federalist, No. 67.
111. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. R. 720, 733, 734, 735.
112. Sergeant on Const. ch. 29, (ch. 31); 2 Executive Journal, p. 415, 500; 3 Executive Journal, 297.
113. See 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 343, 344, 345; The Federalist, No. 78; Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 175. — The practice in the time of President Washington, and President John Adams was, for the president, at the opening of each session of congress to meet both Houses in person, and deliver a speech to them, containing his views on public affairs, and his recommendations of measures. On other occasions he simply addressed written messages to them, or either of them, according to the nature of the message. To the speeches thus made a written answer was given by each house; and thus an opportunity was afforded by the opponents of the administration to review its whole policy in a single debate on the answer. That practice was discontinued by President Jefferson, who addressed all his communications to congress by written messages; and to these no answers were returned.e The practice thus introduced by him has been ever since exclusively pursued by all succeeding presidents, whether for the better has been gravely doubted by some of our most distinguished statesmen.
e. Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 171, 172, 173.
114. See 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 343, 344, 345; The Federalist, No. 78; Rawle on Const. ch. 16, p. 175.
116. The Federalist, No. 42.
117. The Federalist, No. 42.
118. Rawle on Const. ch. 24, p. 224, 225.
119. Ibid.; 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 2 p. 40 to 44; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. R. 22; The Bello Corunnes, 6 Wheat. R. 152, 168; Viveash v. Buker, 3 Maule & Selw. R. 284.
120. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 2, p. 89; Rutherforth’s Instit. B 2, ch. 9, § 20, Grotius, Lib. 2, ch. 8, § 1, 3, 4.
122. Rawle on Constitution, ch. 20, p. 195, 196.
123. It is surprising, that the Federalist should have treated the power of receiving ambassadors and other public ministers, as an executive function of little intrinsic importance. Its language is, “This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity, than of authority. It is a circumstance, which will be without consequence in the administration of the government. And it was far more convenient, that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.” The Federalist, No. 69.
124. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. R. 610, 634, 643; Hoyt v. Gelston, 3 Wheat. R. 246, 323, 324; Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 441; The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. R. 599 and note 65; The Neustra Sonora de la Carldad, 4 Wheat. R. 497.
125. See 1 Black. Comm. 953.
126. The Federalist, No. 69.
See 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 6, p. 398, 399, 404, 405, 411, 412; 1 Tuck Black. Comm. App. 341.
127. See 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington: ch. 6: p. 443, 444; 7 Wait’s State Papers, 282, 283, 302.
128. 1 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 2, p. 37, 38, 39.
129. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, S. C.; 2 Peters’s Cond. R. 276, 277.
130. 1 Wait’s American State Papers, 44.
131. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 6, p. 404, 408.
132. Rawle on Const. ch. 20, p. 197. — The learned reader, who wishes to review the whole ground, will find it treated in a masterly manner, in the letters of Pacificus, written by Mr. Hamilton in favor of the power, and in the letters of Helvidius, written by Mr. Madison against it. They will both be found in the edition of the Federalist, printed at Washington, in 1818, and in Hallowell, in 1826, in the Appendix.
133. 1 Tuckers Black. Comm. App. 346.–Both houses of Congress, in their answers to the President’s speech at the ensuing session, approved of his conduct, m issuing the proclamation. — 1 Tucker’s Black. Comm. App. 346.
134. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 6, p. 433, 441; Serg. Const. ch. 29, [ch. 31.] See also Hayburn’s case, 2 Dall. R. 409, 410, and note; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 171. — President Washington, in 1793, requested the opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court, upon the construction of the treaty with France, of 1778; but they declined to give any opinion, upon the ground stated in the text. 5 Marshall’s Life of Washington, ch. 6, p. 433, 441.
135. In consequence of President Jackson’s Message, negativing the Bank of the United States, July 10, 1832, in which be advances the doctrine, that the decisions made by other departments of the government, including the Judiciary, and even by his predecessors in office in approving laws, are not obligatory on him; the question has been a good deal agitated by statesmen and constitutional lawyers. The following extract from a letter, written by Mr. Madison to Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, on 25th of June, 1831, contains reasoning on this subject, worthy of the judgment of that great man.
“The charge of inconsistency between my objection to the constitutionality of such a bank, in 1791, and my assent, in 1817, turns to the question how far legislative precedents, expounding the constitution, ought to guide succeeding legislatures, and to overrule individual opinions.
“Some obscurity has been thrown over the question, by confounding it with the respect due from one legislature, to laws passed by preceding legislatures. But the two cases are essentially different. A constitution, being derived from a superior authority, is to be expounded and obeyed, not controlled or varied by the subordinate authority of a legislature. A law, on the other hand, resting on no higher authority, than that possessed by every successive legislature; its expediency, as well as its meaning, is within the scope of the latter.
“The case in question has its true analogy, in the obligation arising from judicial expositions of the law on succeeding judges, the constitution being a law to the legislator, as the law is a rule of decision to the judge.
“And why are judicial precedents, when formed on due discussion and consideration, and deliberately sanctioned by reviews and repetitions, regarded as of binding influence, or rather of authoritative force, in settling the meaning of a law? It must be answered, 1st, because it is a reasonable and established axiom, and the good of society requires, that the rules of conduct of its members, should be certain and known, which would not be the case if any judge, disregarding the decisions of his predecessors, should vary the rule of law, according to his individual interpretation of it. Misera est servitus ubi jus aut vagum aut incognitum. 2d, because an exposition of the law publicly made, and repeatedly confirmed by the constituted authority, carries with it, by fair inference, the sanction of those, who, having made the law through their legislative organ, appear under such circumstances, to have determined its meaning through their judiciary organ.
“Can it be of less consequence, that the meaning of a constitution should be fixed and known, than that the meaning of a law should be so? Can, indeed, a law be fixed in its meaning and operation, unless the constitution be so? On the contrary, if a particular legislature, differing in the construction of the constitution, from a series of preceding constructions, proceed to act on that difference, they not only introduce uncertainty and instability in the constitution, but in the laws themselves; inasmuch as all laws, preceding the new construction, and inconsistent with it, are not only annulled for the future, but virtually pronounced nullities from the beginning.
token by a judge, acting under the law, which is his?
“There is, in fact and in common understanding, a necessity of regarding a course of practice, as above characterized, in the light of a legal rule of interpreting a law: end there is a like necessity of considering it a constitutional rule of interpreting a constitution.
“That there may be extraordinary and peculiar circumstances controlling the rule in both cases, may be admitted; but with such exceptions, the rule will force itself on the practical judgment of the most ardent theorist. He will find it impossible to adhere to, and act officially upon his solitary opinions, as to the meaning of the law or constitution, in opposition to a construction reduced to practice, during a reasonable period of time; more especially, where no prospect existed of a change of construction, by the public or its agents. And if a reasonable period of time, marked with the usual sanctions, would not bar the individual prerogative, there could be no limitation to its exercise, although the danger of error must increase with the increasing oblivion of explanatory circumstances, and with the continual changes in the import of words and phrases.
“Let it then be left to the decision of every intelligent and candid judge, which, on the whole, is most to be relied on for the true and safe construction of a constitution; that which has the uniform sanction of successive legislative bodies through a period of years, and under the varied ascendancy of parties; or that which depends upon the opinions of every new legislature, heated as it may be by the spirit of party, eager in the pursuit or some favorite object, or led astray by the eloquence and address of popular statesmen, themselves, perhaps, under the influence of the same misleading causes.
“It was in conformity with the view here taken, of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedents, that the bank of the United States, though on the original question held to be unconstitutional, received the executive signature in the year 1817. The act originally establishing a bank, had undergone ample discussions in its passage through the several branches of the government. It had been carried into execution throughout a period of twenty years, with annual legislative recognitions; in one instance, indeed, with a positive ramification of it into a new state; and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities, as well as of the nation at large; to all of which may be added a decreasing prospect of any change in the public opinion, adverse to the constitutionality of such an institution. A veto from the executive under these circumstances; with an admission of.the expediency and almost necessity of the measure, would have been a defiance of all the obligations derived from a course of precedents, amounting to the requisite evidence of the national judgment and intention.
There is also a very cogent argument, on the same side, in Mr. Webster’s Speech in the senate, in July, 1832, on the Veto Message of the President.

References: v. 
 § 524
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 20
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.