186 



CONGE ESS, UNITED STATES. 



the President in respect to his policy, indepen- 

 dent of the President, and leaves him but a 

 sounding title in the administration of the af- 

 fairs of the Government. 



''Now, I say that this is a radical change of 

 the Government of the United States, and that 

 Congress ought not adopt that change without 

 a more careful consideration than is involved in 

 a proposed change in the tenure of minor officers 

 of the Government. In respect to the Postmas- 

 ter-General's department, it has already some 

 twenty-seven thousand offices. It is impossible 

 for the President to make all these appoint- 

 ments, and the power must necessarily be vest- 

 ed in the Postmaster-General, just as you invest 

 power in the courts to appoint commissioners 

 and in deputy postmasters to appoint their 

 clerks ; but this goes further, this goes to the 

 very essence of the Government of the United 

 States, and proposes to take from the President 

 the powers which the Constitution and laws 

 confer upon him." 



Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvania, said : " I move 

 to strike out the last line of the amendment, 

 simply for the purpose of saying a few words. 

 It seems to me that the proposition which is 

 now made by the gentleman from the Commit- 

 tee on the Judiciary (Mr. Williams) is called 

 for by no public exigency, and is only fraught 

 with future embarrassment and inconvenience. 

 If the law with regard to the appointing power 

 is so arranged and so bound up that the power 

 shall be controlled by the Senate and the Presi- 

 dent as regards all the subordinate officers of 

 the Government, I see no possible necessity for 

 trammelling the President in regard to his con- 

 fidential advisers ; or as John Randolph was 

 wont to say, ' his head clerks.' 



" It seems to me that it will lead to embarrass- 

 ment in this way : if a cabinet officer dissents 

 from the opinions of the Executive, the Execu T 

 tive should possess the power of removing that 

 cabinet officer ; otherwise your plan leads to 

 this result, as was suggested by the gentleman 

 from Iowa (Mr. Kasson), that you transfer the 

 executive office from the Executive of the Uni- 

 ted States to his cabinet council. And in trans- 

 ferring it you make a new executive consisting 

 of many heads instead of one ; because if those 

 officers are not removable from office at the 

 will of the President, they may remain in office 

 and outvote the President ; they take such a 

 course with regard to the administration of the 

 executive office as by a majority of their num- 

 ber they may determine. And what is that 

 but the substitution of a new executive in the 

 place of the constitutional Executive ? I think 

 the future would reveal the impolicy of the 

 great and fundamental change contemplated by 

 this amendment. It seems to me to be fraught 

 with future evil ; to be, indeed, as was said by the 

 gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ivasson), a radical 

 revolution in one department of the Govern- 

 ment. I hope, therefore, that the House will 

 adhere to its position of yesterday." 



Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, said: "Mr. Speaker, I 



do not accept the doctrine which has been ad- 

 vanced by my colleague from Iowa (Mr. Kas- 

 son), and by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

 (Mr. Thayer), in regard to the executive depart- 

 ment of the Government as correct. I find, sir, 

 that the Constitution says that the executive 

 power shall be vested in the President of the 

 United States of America. Now, I should like 

 to know what there is in the executive part of 

 the Government as we find it in the Constitution 

 which would confer upon the heads of depart- 

 ments power to override the President of the 

 United States in the determination of any policy 

 however independent of the President you may 

 make these heads of departments ? What right 

 has a head of a department to a policy except 

 it be that policy established by law? What 

 right, under the operation of this amendment 

 offered by my colleague on the Judiciary Com- 

 mittee, would the heads of departments have to 

 convene themselves together and override the 

 President in the exercise of his power ? The 

 President is, as the Constitution says, the Execu- 

 tive of the United States. He is to execute 

 what ? He is to execute the law, and any policy 

 which he may have, or which his cabinet may 

 have, or the two combined may have, in viola- 

 tion of law, is a violation not merely of the law, 

 but of the Constitution itself. 



" Now, sir, the practice that this amendment 

 proposes radically to change in the executive 

 branch of our Government is one which has ob- 

 tained too often and too long in our Government, 

 It is in regard to foreign affairs and the admin- 

 istration of domestic concerns as alluded to by my 

 colleague from Iowa. Sir, it is the duty of the 

 legislative department of the Government to de- 

 termine the policy of the Government, internal 

 and foreign. The laws passed by Congress im- 

 pose duties upon the President and upon the 

 heads of departments, and they are to see to the 

 execution of these laws. I ask any gentleman 

 to point out to me how we are creating another 

 branch of the executive department. I say 

 cabinet officers, if you are pleased to call them 

 such, shall hold their offices during the tenn of 

 the President by whom they are appointed. 

 How does that make them independent in the 

 determination of the policy of the President? 

 What have they to (lo but to obey the laws and 

 to obey the order the President may issue as 

 Executive of the United States? Suppose a 

 cabinet officer should have one line of policy in 

 his department, and the President should con- 

 clude that another line of policy should be pur- 

 sued, what has the President to do but to order 

 this head clerk to pursue his policy ? Suppose 

 he should disobey any Mandate of the legisla- 

 tive department embodied in law, what right 

 has he to override the order of the Executive 

 of the United States, who is made by the Con- 

 stitution chief executive officer, any more than 

 he has to override a mandate of the law, pro- 

 vided the order of the President is within the 

 proper limits of the executive power ? " 



The debate was further continued until the 



