Year: 1867

the Constitution, the Senate will, reman,her
| give to the President the authorize m on,o;nt


certain officers by and with the adv;ppap ppoS a,,d


consent OF the Senate, and it is provided IN


other officers may be appointed in such mode


as Congress may provide. In order ~
Suaru against the contingency Of vacancy


in any OF the offices, and as necessary IN car.


ry on the public business of the country. the


President is vested with the power to appomt


to office during the recess of the Senate. and
by the very terms OF the Constitution the


commission which he is to issue in cases of
that description continues until the last day
of the succeeding session of the Senate. As


have said to the officer to whom refer, and
as l now say to the Senate, what think they


will concur with me to be very evident, the


President, under the authority which he GER


tainly has OF appointing during the recess,


may dispense with the acton OF the Senate


altogether; for if the commission which he


give, 10 the officer he appoints continues


until the termination of the next session.
there Is then when Congress adiourns OF
course vacancy in that Office happening in


the recess which he is to ill; and he NAV 90
on from time to time appointing durino q re


cess so as to avoid entirely the authoritv and
the controlling power which the Const;tI,-
ton intended TO give to the Senate Of tba


United States over such appointments as tbe
PRESIDENT is directed to send into the Senate
for confirmation.


But it is only for the President to say-per.
haps all the Senate are not aware of it-that
IN what he has done in cases of this descrip-
ton he has but followed the example of his
predecessors, and that example was in its ori-
gln supported, and in the cases where il has
been followed since, it has been supported by
the opinions of the several ATTORNEY Gener-
ais who happened TO he in office at the time
the instances occurred. Those Attorney Gen
erals We're, l think,-at least l only recolIect
those-Mr. Writ Mr.. Taney, MI Gushing,
Mr. Crittenden, MIR. Mason, and | believe
three or four others. The question was not
submitted to me when / was an incum-
bent OF that Office; but l had occasion TO say
to the President, whose officer was al that
time, that l certainly should not give that
opinion, except upon the authority of the
precedent, and it yielded to that authority
should say that as an original question the
law was really different. 1-l l.r.


What l said to my friend from Maine at
the former session and what 1 admitted to-day
Is that IN my Judgment the President does go
beyond the power conferred upon him when
he reappoints party whose nomination has
been presented to the Senate and rejected, pro
vided tue case stands there and stands there
alone. II he thinks proper to reappoint such
a person, think it is his duty TO inform the
Senate, when he sends that nominee i'm a seq
ond time for approval, what were The peculiar
circumstances which caused him to disregard
the opinion OF the Senate. Any newly dis I
covered facts, any evidence which he suppos-
es would operate upon the Judgment OF the
Senate not in their possession at the time they
toted upon the nomination in the first in
stance, he may produce; but to disregard the
opinion OF the Senate upon the exact case on
which the Senate acted, in my judgment is a
clear abuse, which must be rem, died in some
way or other, and the only way to remedy it
is to reject those who may be nominated
again.


Mr.. Henderson and Mr., Sherman-And he
may reappoint again.


Mr. Johnson-Now, my friends behind me
say he may reappoint again. know it, and
1t IS for that reason that said to him and
said to his Attorney General at the last ses-
sion that cannot be justified by me or by the
Senate, and certainly will not be by me, be-
cause that would be to avoid altogether the
authority OF the Senate; and If he in the case
supposed persevered in nominating and ap-
pointing again after one or more rejections, il
would be in my judgment very serious ques-
ton whether that OF itself would not consti-
tute ground for impeachment. II Mr. Madi- |
son was right in saying as 1 stated to the |
Senate what was in their recollection before
l only mentioned it tor the purpose of bring
ing it more freshly to their recollection
Mr.. Ma iison was right in saying that an abuse
OF the power OF removal was a subject for an !
q fOrtiOri, is the abuse of the
power of appointment in case in which, if it
is submitted to, the whole authority of the
Senate becomes nullity and is set at def
ance. aGt uM 'A