CONGRESS, UNITED 8TA i 



251 



Mr. Trumbull : " Except by and with the ad- 

 and conscut of tho Senate." 



Mr. Sherman : " That is after the session is 

 If there is a man who has held nn office 

 during all tho years of the war, and nni\. .1 in 

 emolument*, he shall not bo turned out and a 

 Union soldier without a leg or an arm put in, 

 or it' put in, that soldier shall not draw his pay 

 until the Senate meets and passes upon the 

 reasons for tho removal ; and then if the Senate 

 does not think tho removal is sufficiently justi- 

 lial.le. by tho reasons stated, he shall not have 

 any pay at all. That is the effect of this pro- 

 vi>ioii. This, therefore, does not reach the 

 purpose contemplated by the Senator from Illi- 

 nois. Jli-4 purpose, I know, is to prevent tho 

 President from removing men for their politi- 

 cal opinions ; that wo all know to bo the pur- 

 pose ; but the President has, by the very terms 

 of tho amendment, the power to remove. All 

 ho has got to do is to give us a reason, whether 

 that reason is wise or unwise, sufficient or in- 

 sufficient, lie may give us a reason, and turn 

 us off with a reason. Keasons are as plenty as 

 blackberries. He may say ho removes a man 

 because he is a civilian and the person he ap- 

 points was a soldier. 



i% Well, take the case of an assessor or a col- 

 lector or a consul or a diplomatic minister, and 

 the thousands of officers covered by this amend- 

 ment. Cabinet officers cannot be removed and 

 anybody put in, rebel or loyal, except at tho 

 risk of not getting any pay in case the Senate 

 disapproves the reasons for the removal. This 

 amendment does not prevent the President from 

 removing any man he chooses, and he may give 

 us a reason or not just as he pleases; the re- 

 moval is complete and perfect by the will of the 

 President ; so that tho amendment accomplishes 

 nothing. It is true, tho man who takes the 

 office cannot draw his pay until the Senate 

 meets ; but do you punish the President, do you 

 cripple his power, do you limit his control over 

 the. public officers? Do you accomplish what 

 you desire to accomplish? Not at all. You 

 may punish some poor devil who is compelled 

 to exercise tho duties of an office and not get 

 any pay for it ; but you do not hurt the Presi- 

 dent or hurt his feelings. The result will bo 

 that good men, poor men, may be deterred from 

 accepting office under these conditions, while 

 bad men or rich men may be indifferent to the 

 salary attached to the office. I say, therefore, 

 with due deference to tho Senator from Illinois, 

 that the amendment does not accomplish tho 

 purpose that he has in view; it does not limit 

 or control tho power of the President over the 

 public officers, but simply aggravates a contro- 

 versy which may never arise. 



"Xow, sir, there is a way, I think, in which 

 this matter can be accomplished not by an 

 amendment to an appropriation bill ; not by a 

 limitation of this character; but by tho exer- 

 cise of tho power of Congress over tho dura- 

 tion and terra of tho various public officer-. 

 Although it has been somewhat questioned at 



ditVcivnt times since the foundation of the Gov- 

 ernment, yet, as I have said before, I do not 

 believe it lias ever been successfully contro- 

 1 that Congress may regulate the dura- 

 tion and term of a public officer, may limit tho 

 ].o\\er of the President to remove him, may 

 declare that such and such an officer shall not 

 be removed except for such and such a cause. 

 But a bill of that kind must be made with many 

 dHerimir.ations, must be made after much care. 

 There are certain officers that tho President 

 ought to have the absolute power of removing; 

 I can name Cabinet officers : it would be in- 

 tolerable that the President should be expected 

 to carry on the business of this great Govern- 

 ment with a Cabinet council over whose mem- 

 bers he had not the power of removal, the com- 

 plete and absolute power. For that reason, 

 hostile political parties have often confirmed 

 the Cabinet ministers of a President of opposite 

 politics, on tho ground that the President, from 

 the very necessity of the case, must have tho 

 power of removing Cabinet ministers and ap- 

 pointing such as he chooses. lie must admin- 

 ister those great offices through his personal 

 friends, and no party would require him to ap- 

 point any but personal friends around him to 

 these great offices. He must, therefore, have 

 power over the Cabinet ministers. So, too, he 

 must have a power over the diplomatic corps in, 

 a great measure. Those are officers appointed 

 to represent our country abroad, holding confi- 

 dential relations with the Secretary of State, 

 and therefore the power over those officers 

 ought not to be limited or controlled or crippled, 

 by Congress. But there are classes of officers 

 who ought to hold their offices independent of 

 the power of removal by the President assess- 

 ors, collectors, postmasters, and other officers 

 who really may exercise political power; that 

 ought by the law to be secured from unjust and 

 arbitrary removal; and there is nothing in the 

 Constitution to prevent Congress from passing 

 a law on tho subject, securing those officers in 

 the discharge of their duties. 



"Mr. President, Congress has power over this 

 subject much more ample than is generally 

 supposed. Congress may prescribe that the 

 judges of the Supreme Court or heads of De- 

 partments or courts of law may make a great 

 variety of appointments. The provision of the- 

 Constitution is that ' Congress may by law 

 vest the appointment of such inferior officers 

 as they think proper in the President alone, in 

 tho courts of law, or in the heads of Deport- 

 ments.' " 



Tho motion to reconsider was agreed to as 

 follows : 



YEAS Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittlc, Edmunds, 

 Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Lune of Kansas, McDou* 

 gall. Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Kiddle, 

 Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Yau Winkle, Willey, 

 Williams, and Wilson 21. 



NATS Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Con- 

 ness, Creswell, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, 

 Lano of Indiana, Morrill, Nye, I'omcror, Ramsey, 

 Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, and Wade 18. 



