THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS, 1853-55. 625 



The regents have expressed the opinion that the secre- 

 tary has power to remove the assistants. This opinion is 

 expressed in the following resolution, adopted in July last: 



Be it resolved, That while power is reserved in the said (7th) section to 

 the Board of Regents to remove both the secretary and his assistants, in the 

 opinion of the board power, nevertheless, remains with the secretary to re- 

 move his said assistants. 



In this opinion the Chief Justice of the United States and 

 Mr. Berrien, who were absent when the resolution was passed, 

 afterwards expressed their full concurrence. 



The committee cannot doubt that it was a sound opinion. 

 The law, as before stated, makes the secretary the sole ad- 

 ministrative officer of the institution. He, and he alone, is 

 keeper of the museum and librarian. The law puts all the 

 property of the Institution into his charge, and authorizes him 

 alone to appoint assistants to aid him in the discharge of the 

 duties devolved upon him. Had the act made no further 

 provision on this head, there could not be a doubt that the 

 power of removal would be in him; because it is an estab- 

 lished principle, that when the power to appoint is conferred, 

 the power of removal is incident to it, unless restrained by 

 some other provision. There is another clause in the same 

 section (7th) which applies as well to the secretar}' as to his 

 assistants, which provides that "the said officers shall be re- 

 movable by the Board of Regents, whenever, in their judg- 

 ment, the interests of the institution require any of the said 

 officers to be changed." 



Under this clause, the question arises, whether it restrains 

 the incidental power of the secretary to remove, or whether, 

 in addition to that incidental power, it gives as regards the 

 assistants, the authority of the board to make such removal. 

 Your committee think the latter the sound construction. 

 It does not restrain the power of the Secretary by express 

 words or by necessary implication. It is true that the 

 clause gives to the board superior power, inasmuch as they 

 may remove an assistant without the concurrence of the 

 secretary, and even against his wish; but this power may 

 well exist without conflict with the incidental authority of 

 the secretary. The same reasons which cause the secretary 

 to be invested with authority to appoint, justify and require 

 his power to remove. The Hon. George M. Dallas, late 

 Vice-President of the United States, and Chancellor of the 

 institution adopts this view, and, in an opinion upon this 

 subject, says : 



It is clear that the act of Congress does not confer upon the Board of 

 Eegents the power to appoint the assistants of the secretary, and for reasons 



40 



