626 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS. 



too palpable to require mention. But if the secretary has not himself under 

 his own mere motion a right to remove, it would be 'impossible to imagine 

 reasons why the power of original appointment was not given to the board. 

 In other words, the reasons which excluded the board from appointing are 

 identically the reasons which preserve to the secretary the power of remov- 

 ing. It mny, perhaps, render it more perspicuous to add that these reasons 

 are the official responsibilities and practical personal intercourse of the sec- 

 retary with his assistants. 



Besides, it is very evident that the interests of the insti- 

 tution might often be in peril if the power of removal \\i in- 

 denied to the secretary. 



The Board of Regents are not in session during a great 

 part of the year. Many of them reside at great distances 

 from "Washington, and could not he assembled without 

 much inconvenience to themselves and heavy expanse to the 

 institution. During this period it might be of the utim>t 

 importance to remove an unfaithful assistant. He might 

 cease to do that for which alone he was appointed, TO assist 

 the secretary in the affairs of the institution. lie might re- 

 fuse to deliver up to the secretary the property of the insti- 

 tution which the law puts in his charge, lie might threaten 

 and intend to destroy it, might treat the secretary with per- 

 sonal indignity, and insult and defame the regents, and 

 spread insubordination throughout the institution. For 

 such conduct there would be no prompt and adequate 

 remedy unless the secretary possessed the power of removal. 

 One case of this kind has already occurred. A person in 

 the employment of .the institution has refused to deliver up 

 certain papers, the property of the institution, and threat- 

 ened to destroy them. He has also written a letter, which 

 was published over his own signature in a New York paper, 

 vilifying the secretary and several of the regents, by name, 

 in the most abusive language. For this and other causes 

 during the last recess of Congress he was removed by the 

 secretary, and, as the committee cannot doubt, most justly 

 removed. This very individual was the principal witness 

 against the secretary on the examination before your com- 

 mittee. 



We think that the resolution of the regents, above quoted, 

 while maintaining the superior authority of the board, 

 properly asserted the power of the secretary. 



Your committee regret very much to say that the secre- 

 tary was also justified in the removal of Mr. Jewett. His 

 removal was not arbitrary, unjust, and oppressive. Mr. 

 Jewett is a man of talent and scholastic attainments, but it 

 is evident, from his own testimony, that he considered him- 

 self as holding an antagonistic position to the secretary, as 

 " having charge of the library, and being considered by the 



