CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



247 



why not say so directly? If we ore prepared 

 tn adopt tho doctrine of the Senator from Mis- 

 souri, why nt .1. i it in as open ami manly a way 

 as he declare* it i Alter a uniform exercise of 

 the power !>y every Administration since tho 

 formation of tho Constitution, to some extent, 

 although for a considerable time doubted and 

 questioned, and after at lea-t, thirty years of 

 undoubted and iituiucstioned use, by a sweep- 

 ing change of political appointments, with every 

 l>olitical change of adnriuistration, and by both 

 political parties, if we design now to declare a 

 ' diilercnt rule, and change the whole action of 

 tho Government in this respect, does it behoove 

 us to do it in tho indirect and sinister way this 

 amendment proposes? 



" I have asked if that was the design, to deny 

 to the President the power to remove, why not 

 declare so, and make the needful and proper 

 legislation on the subject, and I have been told 

 that we could not pass such a law. Why not, 

 let me ask ? It must be, I suppose, because a 

 majority of this body, or of both Houses, do 

 not believe in the principle. If that be so, is 

 it exactly open and honest dealing to undertake 

 to bolster up this amendment by affecting to 

 believe the President transcends his power by 

 making such removals and new appointments? 

 I must be allowed to say that it is a mode of 

 accomplishing a purpose that does not com- 

 mend itself to me. 



" But notwithstanding tho argument in sup- 

 port of the amendment has been mainly that 

 such political changes were beyond tho legal 

 and constitutional power of the President, the 

 amendment upon its face concedes it, and pro- 

 vides that those appointed to fill vacancies 

 caused by removals for misconduct in office 

 shall be excepted from this prohibition of pay- 

 ment. It cannot be said that he has the power 

 of removal for one cause, and has not for 

 another. If by the Constitution he has tho 

 power of removal at all, of necessity he must be 

 the sole and exclusive judge of the cause and 

 necessity of removal. The validity or legality 

 of the appointment of tho officer appointed to 

 fill such a vacancy could not be inquired into by 

 going back to inquire for what cause his prede- 

 cessor was removed. In the exhaustive dis- 

 cussions which this subject received from the 

 eminent statesmen of the early days of the Gov- 

 ernment, it was never suggested but that the 

 President was the only judge of the cause of 

 removal, if he possessed the power in any case. 

 This amendment virtually broaches a wholly 

 new doctrine. It concedes tho power of re- 

 moval by the President, but as>uims that we 

 may go back behind that, and inquire into the 

 reasons, for the purpose of determining whether 

 the new appointee shall have pay. It is cer- 

 tainly an anomaly that a man may legally fill 

 and perform the duties of fin office, but his 

 right to co7iipensation shall depend upon tho 

 reasons that influenced the appointing powor 

 in making the appointment. 



"The last contest on this subject of the Pres- 



ident's power of removal was during President 

 Jackson's administration, and the j?rcat \\\i\u 

 leaders of that day made a powerful effort to 

 bring the Government baclc to what they 

 claimed was the true construction of the Con- 

 stitution, and deny the I 'resident the power of 

 removal. But they did not succeed, and all 

 parties have acted without question since upon 

 the other theory. But it seems not to have 

 occurred to those eminent statesmen that 

 though the President could legally remove offi- 

 cers and fill their places with other persons, 

 that they could make it a barren honor of de- 

 priving the holders of all compensation. It haa 

 been reserved for this financial generation to 

 discover this new mode of curing either a de- 

 fect in the Constitution or a wrongful inter- 

 pretation of it. To me, the idea is strange and 

 monstrous that a man who legally holds an 

 office, and properly performs its duties, should 

 not be paid because the reasons for his appoint- 

 ment were politically unsatisfactory. I believe 

 such a position to bo wholly indefensible; 

 wrong in principle ; one upon which no party 

 can stand. In offering the motion to recon- 

 sider the vote passing this bill, I happened to 

 say that such a doctrine seemed to me to be 

 almost revolutionary. I have since learned 

 that a radical Unionist has no right to use that 

 word, that it belongs wholly to persons and 

 papers of opposite political proclivities. I there- 

 fore take leave to withdraw the word. 



" What is the real purpose and object of this 

 amendment ? I suppose we may as well speak 

 of things as they exist and as we all know them 

 to be, as to pretend to bo thinking and talking 

 of something else. 



" A difference has arisen between the Presi- 

 dent and the Congress in relation to the proper 

 policy to be pursued in relation to the States 

 lately in rebellion, who separated from us and 

 formed themselves into a separate government 

 and between whom and us a fierce war raged 

 for four years before we succeeded in conquer- 

 ing them. The President insists that, as the 

 rebellion is put down and new State govern- 

 ments have been set up in those States, they 

 are now entitled to be represented in the two 

 Houses of Congress (if the members sent are 

 loyal) and to participate in all respects in the 

 administration of tho General Government as if 

 they had not rebelled. Congress, on the other 

 'hand, claim that all tho legal relations between 

 these States and the General Government hav- 

 ing by the rebellion and war consequent upon 

 it been severed, it rests with Congress as the 

 law-making department of the Government to 

 restore them again, and that, in doing so, it is 

 their right and their duty to exact such assur- 

 ances and guaranties as will protect the loyal 

 part of the nation against all danger from those 

 who have shown such a determination to de- 

 stroy it. 



u Neither the President nor Congress as yet 

 &how any disposition to yield to the views and 

 policy of the other, and apparently the ques- 



