Year: 1877

gTeSS OF iJSJs


Upon the assembling of Congress, and
the putting into operation the several
executive departments of the govern
ment, bills were introduced to organize
the departments of State, Treasury, and
War. Then arose the very serious
question as to where, except by impeach-
ment, should rest the rightful authority
to remove public officers for justifable
cause l say justifable, for no one then
pretended that an officer could be re-
moved for political reasons, or for any
reason but incompetency or misconduct
1t took forty years to reach that stage
of political decline, and to act upon the
principle that Offices necessary to carry
on the government for the whole people
were the exclusive property of the rul-
ing party, to be parceled out among its
retainers only. The bill to organize
State Department, as reported from the
committee, contained clause giving the
President power to remove the Secre-
tary without the concurrence of the
Senate as a responsible part of the ap.
pointing power. AS there is no word
or words in the Constitution giving the
President the power of removal, it had
to be drawn by inference and forced by
legislative construction from some one
or more of the powers expressed therein.
When the bill came before the House
of Representatives in 1889, the question
of the power of removal from Office was
discussed with much warmth and abili-
ty for several days.


The admission of such power in
executive hands, even under the rigid
restrictions which were then claimed
would always govern it, was most siren.
uously opposed by many of the best and
most able men in the House. They
stood upon the ground that the COnsti-
tuition nowhere gave the President
authority to remove public officer !;
that it required the same power to re-
move as to appoint, viz, both President
and Senate that the admission by in
ference of any control. however limited,
by the Executive was anti-republican,
and would in time degenerate into
control over the freedom of opinion and
the political rights of all persons in the
civil service, and make them the slaves
and tools of an unscrupulous political
party. They clearly foreshadowed the
"spoils system" and the long train of
evils it has brought upon the country.


The advocates of the power could
refer to no clause in the Constitution
from which it might be directly derived,
but relied mainly on the article which
required the President to see that the
laws are faithfully executed, and on the
still broader and bolder declaration that
the power of removing officers was but
a part of and included in the executive
power. They considered it expedient
and necessary that the President should,
under certain limitations have the
power to remove officers for cause, to
enable him to properly perform his duty
as executive head of the government,
and they therefore sought to derive it
inferentially from some expressed power.


1t is highly important to keep in
mind that the advocates of executive
power of removal did not claim for the
President, general, but narrowly
restricted, power. They thought it
could not bo extended further than to
the removal Of incompetent or unfaith.
full officers, or such as were so unfit for
the places they occupied, as to render
their continuance in Office incompatible
with the public good or the interest of
the service. To remove a competent
and faithful officer for political, personal,
or any reason other than such as the
good of the service might require,
would be so gross and tyrannica an
abuse of power as to render the Presi
dent himself liable to impeachment and
removal for such an unconstitutional
act.


Mr.. Madison, during the discussion,
for the first time, so far as public
records show, expressed his opinion on
the subject. In reply to members who
opposed placing the power, however
limited, solely in the hands of the Presi-
dent because they could sec no warrant
for it in the Constitution, and because
they believed it would in time overleap
the restrictions set for it, become
general in practice and lead to great
abuse and political corruption, he spoke
as follows:


"But the power we contend for will
not enable him to do this, for if an un-
worthy man be continued in office by an
unworthy President, the House of Rep.
resentatives can at any time impeach
him, and the Senate can remove him
whether the President choose or not.
The danger consists merely in this, the
President can displace from Office a
man whose merits require that he should
be continued in it. What will be the
motives which the President can feel
for such an abuse of power and the
restraints that operate to prevent it ?
In the first place, he will be impeach.