CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



243 



tee from carefully framing a law prescribing 

 the term of otlire of the various clash's i.f oili- 



: tli.- < io\i ninient, and declaring tliat tho 

 nt shall imt remove- any one- of those 

 officers except lor such and such causes? " 



Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, in favor of tho 



amendment, said : '' Mr. President, no man can 



of 1789, as I have done within 



t two or three days, without coming to 

 tho same conclusion. Mr. Madison and thoso 

 who contended with him, it seems to me, were 

 in favor of leaving this power in tho hands of 

 tho President by their legislation, simply be- 



they had entire confidence in tho Father 

 of his Country. I have looked at this question 

 of removal, and I find that during tho whole- 

 eight years of the administration, of General 

 Washington, after this debate in Congress, and 

 after tho admission that the power rested in the* 

 Executive to make removals without cause, 

 there were but nine removals made. I do not 

 say that they were made without cause, but I 

 mean that there were but nine removals made 

 by the Executive. Mr. Adams succeeded Gen- 

 eral "Washington, and there were but ten re- 

 movals during his term of four years. Jefferson 

 was in tho presidency for eight years, and ho 

 removed but forty-two men. The whole eight 

 years of the administration of Mr. Madison 

 show but three removals. Mr. Madison claimed 

 the power to exist, I admit, as fully as the Sen- 

 ator from Maryland ; but how did Mr. Madison 

 exercise that power when he had the control 

 of it himself? In the whole eight years of his 

 administration he saw fit to make but three re- 

 movals. Mr. Monroe was in the presidency 

 for eight years, and he made but nine removals. 

 John Quincy Adams, during his four years of 

 administration, made but two removals. Forty 

 years of the Government show but seventy -five 

 removals, not two a year. But when General 

 Jackson came in, the first year showed some 

 two hundred and thirty, and after that, I be- 

 lieve, some four or five thousand ; and from 

 that day to this it has been the continual prac- 

 tice of the Executive to seize upon the offices 

 of this country for the purpose of increasing 

 their power and patronage. When we come 

 to examine the Constitution we clearly come to 

 the conclusion that the President has no power 

 to remove an officer. Why should he have the 

 power? Ho may nominate, and by and with 

 the advice and consent of the Senate may ap- 

 point an officer, but where does he get the 

 power, as was very properly said by Mr. Cal- 

 houn, to remove an officer after he had once 

 been placed in office ? " 



Mr. Trnmbull now modified his amendment 

 to make the latter part read as follows : 



Which has happened during the recess of the Sen- 

 ate and since its last adjournment, by death, resig- 

 nation, expiration of term, or removal for acts done 

 or omitted in violation of the duties of his office : the 

 cause, in case of removal, to be reported to the Sen- 

 ate at its next session. 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, again opposed the 



amendment, saying : u Tho question ig whether, 

 under tin: (.'ou.-titiition, th3 I'n-id.-tit has the 

 to remove officers without the consent 

 of the Senate ; and the question, as it is pre- 

 sented by the amendment proposed by the hon- 

 orable member frtfin Illinois, comprehends every 

 class of officers whom he may appoint with tho 

 advice and consent of the Senate. It embraces, 

 consequently, the members of his Cabinet who 

 are called around him for the very purpose of 

 aiding him in the administration of his office, 

 in whom lie is to confide, in whose sincerity of 

 friendship, political as well as personal, ho 

 ought to rely ; and if the Senators will look to 

 what was said in both Houses of Congress at 

 the period when the several Departments were 

 organized, they will see that it never entered 

 into the imagination of any of the statesmen 

 of that day that the President could be com- 

 pelled to retain in his Cabinet officers in whom 

 ho had ceased to confide, no matter upon what 

 ground his confidence was lost. If he suspected 

 a want of integrity, without having any posi- 

 tive proof, nobody doubted that it would bo 

 not only hia right but his duty to remove. If 

 he suspected or believed a want of fitness, tlx> 

 same was the universal opinion. If he suspected 

 that they were hostile to what he believed to 

 be a proper discharge of his duty, nobody ques- 

 tioned that he would have a right to dispense 

 with them and to get around him men who 

 would, with himself, be a unit with reference 

 to all the executive functions intrusted to that 

 department of Government. But if you adopt 

 this amendment as it is now altered by my 

 friend from Illinois, you to a certain extent 

 deny to him the right to remove a Cabinet 

 officer, because the amendment as it now stands 

 provides that if he does remove he must at tho 

 next session of the Senate report to the Senate 

 the reasons upon which he removes. What is 

 to be the effect of that, provided you have tho 

 authority to impose it ? Suppose the reasons 

 are not satisfactory, is the Cabinet member 

 who has been removed to bo reinstated ? The 

 amendment does not say so ; and if it did say 

 so, what would bo the principle which the Sen- 

 ate would have adopted ? That of forcing upon 

 the President of the United States a Cabinet 

 officer in whom he has no confidence, whom he 

 believes to be untrue to duty, incompetent to 

 the discharge of his office. The Senate may 

 think differently from the President ; they may 

 believe that he has been true to duty, that he 

 has every competency necessary to the dis- 

 charge of tho duties of the office, and so de- 

 cide ; is that to reinstate the minister who has 

 been removed ? This amendment does not say 

 BO. If it does not eay so, what is to be the 

 effect of tho amendment ? To get before the 

 Senate some ground upon which the other 

 branch of Congress may impeach the President 

 of the United States. 



"Now, I speak knowingly, Mr. President, 

 when I say that whatever doubt was expressed 

 during the session of tho Congress of ] 789 in 



