CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



193 



" Until lately I supposed there were but two 

 interpretations thought of; one an interpreta- 

 tion that gives to the President the unqualified 

 power of removal, the other an interpretation 

 that requires the concurrence of the Senate in 

 the exercise of the power of removal. Of late 

 1 understand that a third interpretation has 

 been suggested, and that is that the President 

 may exercise the power of removal, but sub- 

 ject to such regulations as Congress in its 

 wisdom may prescribe. To my apprehension, 

 sir, this third view of the Constitution is to- 

 tally inadmissible. Either the power is vest- 

 ed in the President by the Constitution with- 

 out limit or qualification, or the concurrence 

 of the Senate is made necessary to the exercise 

 of that power. If the Constitution vests the 

 power absolutely in the President, then it is not 

 competent for Congress to restrict, restrain, or 

 limit it. So, if the Constitution vests the 

 power in the President with the concurrence 

 of the Senate, it is equally inadmissible for 

 Congress to restrain or limit or restrict a 

 power thus vested in the President and Sen- 

 ate. 



"I do not, therefore, with great deference 

 to those who think differently, suppose that 

 this is a subject for legislation. I suppose that 

 Congress may well enough prescribe a term of 

 office ; but I do not suppose that that touches 

 the question where the power of removal re- 

 sides. Congress may prescribe a term of 

 office ; but, if the Constitution vests either in 

 the President alone, or in the President and 

 this body, the right to remove, that power can 

 be exercised notwithstanding it may abridge 

 the incumbency of any individual. 



"I say, then, Mr. President, that we are 

 brought simply back to the original question, 

 is the power of removal vested in the Presi- 

 dent alone, or is the concurrence of the Senate 

 necessary to that power? It is not, in my 

 humble judgment, a question for legislation; 

 it is a question of constitutional interpretation. 

 This -being the case, it seems to me that there 

 is but one of two modes to adopt. If, in the 

 opinion of this Senate, the power of removal 

 is vested in the President alone, then the civil 

 Tenure-of-office Act ought to be repealed. If, 

 in the opinion of the Senate, he does not pos- 

 sess that unqualified power, but the assent of 

 the Senate is necessary to a removal, then I 

 submit that the Tenure-of-office Act or some 

 similar law should stand as the law of the 

 land. 



" Why, Mr. President, what is it now pro- 

 posed to do ? To take neither one of these in- 

 terpretations. I understand it to be very truly 

 stated by the Senator from Illinois that a ma- 

 jority of this body believe that the true inter- 

 pretation of the Constitution requires the con- 

 currence of the Senate in the removal of an 

 officer. If so, I submit to honorable Senators 

 how can they vote to suspend this law ? There 

 is one theory upon which they can vote for it 

 very well, one theory upon which they could 

 VOL. ix. 13. A 



vote for the repeal of the Tenure-of-office Act, 

 and that is that the President of the United 

 States will obey the Constitution as they un- 

 derstand it ; that without any law on the 

 statute-book he will, in every instance, submit 

 to the Senate the question of removal from 

 office. Do Senators expect that? Do they 

 expect that the President will interpret the 

 Constitution as they interpret it, and act upon 

 it as they think it requires ? Do they expect 

 that every removal from office will be sub- 

 mitted to this body if the Tenure-of-office Act 

 should be repealed? If they do not expect 

 that, what, then, do they propose to do ? Do 

 they propose to suffer the President of the 

 United States to violate the Constitution, ac- 

 cording to their interpretation of that instru- 

 ment ; or what will they do should he so vio- 

 late it ? Should he so violate it, and should he 

 be impeached for that violation, what will be 

 their votes on the impeachment? Will they 

 find him guilty or not guilty of an infraction 

 of the Constitution? If they believe that he 

 has no unqualified power of removal, if they 

 believe that the concurrence of this body is 

 necessary in every instance of removal, how 

 can they say that he will be guiltless of a vio- 

 lation of the Constitution if he remove an offi- 

 cer without submitting the question to the Sen- 

 ate? And yet is not that the object of this 

 bill, to suspend this act? Suspend it, why? 

 Suspend it for what ? Suspend it that the 

 President of the United States may exercise 

 that absolute and unqualified power of removal 

 that was exercised before the passage of the 

 Tenure-of-office Act. 



"Now, sir, it does seem to me that it will 

 be regarded throughout the country, if this 

 bill be passed, that the Senate of the United 

 States interprets the Constitution to mean one 

 thing when one man is President, and inter- 

 prets it to mean another thing when another 

 man is President ; and I do most respectfully 

 submit to this body that it is hardly consistent 

 with its dignity, that it is hardly consistent 

 with the dignity of the Congress of the United 

 States, to pass a law like the Tenure-of-office 

 Act after great and solemn consideration, and 

 the moment that another President is elected 

 and installed into office to suspend that law 

 and make it a dead letter. Let this precedent 

 be set, and what will be the value of the claim 

 of the Senate to a concurrence in the power 

 of removal from office ? " 



A debate ensued which continued several 

 days and embraced the views advanced on the 

 passage of the original bill (see ANNUAL CY- 

 CLOPEDIA, 1867). It closed with a vote to re- 

 commit the report. 



On March 24th the committee again reported 

 back the bill, with an amendment, which was 

 to strike out all of the bill after the enacting 

 clause, and to insert the following: 



That the first and second sections of an act entitled 

 " An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," 

 passed March 2, 1867, be, and the same are hereby, 



