Chapter X: Introduction (9)

He would now proceed to examine, whether rendering this law perpetual would be a wise and prudent measure. It had been well observed by the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) that every part of the law would bear harder on some States than on others; perhaps there was no State in the Union which would not be in some degree dissatisfied. He could perceive, by the sentiments of gentlemen in this House, that the burthens would be peculiarly felt; under these impressions, gentlemen have expressed themselves more warmly than perhaps they ought. There had been predictions of the most dangerous consequences of high duties, which he would not repeat; if these dangers were not imaginary, would it be prudent in the House, to risk these consequences, and make these dangers unavoidable by rendering the law perpetual.

Much pains had been taken to impose the burthens as equally as possible. If the duty on molasses bears hard upon one State, the tonnage duty would bear equally so upon others. But still it is probable, that there are unequal pressures laid by the bill, which experience alone could enable the Legislature to alter to the satisfaction of all parties. The system was great, complex, and comprehensive; it embraces commerce, manufactures, agriculture, finance, and, in short, every thing in which a nation can be concerned. Will it be prudent, then, under our present disadvantages, and without information, to enact a law affecting the highest interests of the people, which can never be repealed but by the consent of three independent bodies? Gentlemen have told us, that no valuable purpose can be answered by making the law temporary; now, he thought a valuable purpose could be answered by it. The two Houses of Congress, with the qualified negative of the President, formed the legislative power of the United States; they are distinct powers to be exercised by both branches of the Legislature. The House had been told, on a former occasion, that the Senate possessed greater powers than the Representatives. He admitted that, in some instances, they had greater powers; but with respect to revenue matters, they certainly had less, and very properly so. Shall we then give up to a body, who has already a superiority over us, those superior powers which we possess relative to revenue? A perpetual system would give the Senate greater advantages than constitutionally they ought to enjoy. He thought it of little consequence for the House to possess the right of originating money bills, if those money bills were made perpetual. The exercise of this right would be lost, and he thought it necessary that every part of Government should feel itself dependent upon the people. We have been told, with truth, that the Senate are a virtuous body; they are so, and he hoped would remain so, for ages yet to come, nay for ever; and, in his legislative capacity, he would act upon no other supposition. But still it ought to be remembered, that they would always be men, and liable to all the errors, frailties, and infirmities, with the rest of their fellow-mortals; besides, they were constituted in some measure for purposes to which the other branch was incompetent; while this House was constituted for purposes for which the Senate is unequal. It is a well-grounded republican maxim, that taxation and representation should depend each on the other. The people should be taxed only by representatives chosen for that purpose. This principle was written in the hearts of our British ancestors; it had been maintained by the best blood of our citizens, and he hoped it would descend with the fullest energy to our posterity. What, said he, are we about to do? A great branch of revenue, indeed the only branch, to which an application is now proper, or expected by the people, is about to be put out of our hands for ever; for it would not be in the power of this House, or any future House, to annihilate those funds without the consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the President. Now, the Senate are not an equal representation of the people; in that body the States have equal numbers, while, in this House, the representation is proportioned to their population. Delaware sends one, Georgia three, and Virginia ten. Is it possible, in the nature of things, that two Senators can be as well acquainted with the feelings and interest of the people of Virginia, as ten men selected from among them, and taken from the several parts of the State? Will the people be satisfied to have that body able to continue a revenue system which their immediate representatives think oppressive, or perhaps unnecessary? Certainly they would not; whatever the wisdom and virtue of the Senate may be, he was convinced they were not competent to those peculiar objects for which a just representation was absolutely necessary. The Senate, it is true, is not a House of Lords; they do not possess any properties materially distinguishing them from the members of the House of Representatives; but, though the distinction is not so striking in the one case as in the other, yet it was nevertheless real. The House of Lords is created by the King, and is a permanent body; the Senate is chosen by the State Legislatures, and though the individuals have not a permanency in office, yet the body never ceases to exist. These circumstances, in the constitution of the Senate, afforded a powerful objection to the new system of Government, and the people would never have adopted it, had they supposed that the powers of this body were unlimited in continuing a system of taxation, which had at any time met the approbation of their particular representatives.[23]

Mr. TUCKER did not think it necessary to give his opinion otherwise than by his vote, because gentlemen, who had yesterday delivered their sentiments in favor of the clause, had anticipated what he had to say. But as he found himself influenced by the call for the ayes and noes on this question, he should be induced to state some of his reasons in favor of the amendment. He said, he was glad the ayes and noes had been called, and if it had not been done by any other gentleman, he should have conceived himself bound to have done it; because he did not think himself at liberty, but on very particular occasions, to make a law perpetual. He wished to see a doctrine established, never to pass a law without limitation, unless justified by some extraordinary circumstances. Nothing, he thought, could ever justify such an act but the immutability of the object, and the absolute necessity and simplicity of every thing relating to it. If the House passed a perpetual revenue law, which had not an immutable object, they would abridge their own power, and destroy one of the great privileges of the people. Every bill of this nature, more or less, narrows the powers of this House, and throws it into the hands of the Executive and a minority of the Senate; for it is to be considered, that whenever we pass a bill on any subject, every matter in that bill contained is given up to the Executive and one-third of the Senators, so much so that it is out of the power of this House, even with a unanimous vote, to recover any part of it.

Mr. SYLVESTER was in favor of the limitation clause. A good deal had been said in the House respecting the jarring interests of the several States. It had been confessed on all hands, that this was an experimental law: he viewed it as such, and expected, in the course of a few years, the Legislature would be able to discover the errors of this day. But what advantage can result from their knowledge, if they have not power to make the necessary alterations, or to build up a new system more perfect than the old? He had examined the annals of history, but was unable to discover that any nation had ever established a perpetual revenue law. He imagined gentlemen would admit these reasons to be sufficient to warrant the vote they were about to give.

Mr. SINNICKSON did not expect this was to be a perpetual law, incapable of alteration; but he wished to see it a permanent system. The idea of a temporary system was long ago said to be out of the contemplation of the House. He should only observe, in addition to this, that our credit depended essentially upon what should be done at this time. He thought if the revenue existed merely upon the breath of the Legislature, for one or two years at a time, we should never attain that object. He thought that the public good required something substantial to be done in favor of those who had lent the public money in the hour of distress.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought himself obliged to say a few words more, in order to justify the part he should take in the division of the House on this question. He conceived the manner in which the motion was brought before the House, after the bill was supposed to be gone through, did not give such opportunity for the members to consider the subject as its importance seemed to require, and which might have been had if it had been brought forward at an earlier period.

If, said he, we are to have the measures of the Parliament of Great Britain hung about our necks in all our public proceedings, and observations from their practice perpetually sounding in our ears, that practice ought to be defined and established. He believed that in the whole volumes of the statute law, there was not one single revenue act to be found with a limitation. He believed that the revenue laws, passed fifty, sixty, eighty, and near a hundred years ago, in that kingdom, existed at the present moment. We have long seen and been convinced of the infirmities of the former confederation, and shall we now rivet those infirmities upon the present constitution? Are we never to stand upon a certain and solid foundation? Is not our public credit totally gone? Has not experience convinced us that the loss of it would have been our total destruction, if the generous exertions we have lately made had not revived some degree of confidence in our future measures? Are we not so deeply in debt as to give us reason to believe that it will require many years to emancipate ourselves? If this is the case, will a revenue law for one or two years bring that relief which is expected? Will this prevent an increase of the public debt? Will it restore value to the evidences of that debt held by our creditors? He would ask any man, whether, if the United States were in the situation in which they were last war, he would be induced to lend money upon a temporary and inadequate fund provided for two years? He believed the answer would be in the negative.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion in order to introduce another, which he hoped would reconcile both sides of the House. He joined those gentlemen who opposed the clause in thinking that one or two years would be a period insufficient to answer the purposes in contemplation. If the House agree to the clause he would substitute for the one just withdrawn, he would move to fill the blank with a more distant day. His motion was, that this act shall not continue in force after the ---- day of ---- unless otherwise provided in the act for the appropriation of the revenue.

Mr. FITZSIMONS seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN liked this motion better than the other. Although he was in favor of leaving the law at large, he would vote for this clause, if the blanks were filled up with a sufficient time to accomplish those objects which the Government had in view in providing revenue.

Mr. AMES thought the question would recur when the appropriation or collecting bill came before them; he would rather, for his own part, decide the question at this moment, than consume the time of the House with another debate. Besides the House was not in possession of an act for appropriating the revenue; such a measure might never be agreed to; therefore he hoped the decision would take place at this time rather than be evaded.

Mr. FITZSIMONS was of opinion, that this revenue ought to be appropriated to the payment of the public debts; what were the views of other gentlemen he could not say. He was nevertheless in favor of limiting the law, and that upon constitutional principles, though he wished it commensurate to its object. Gentlemen had said a great deal respecting the imperfection of the system, that it was the effect of compromise; but nevertheless, he thought it as free from defects as it was possible a revenue system could be formed with such materials as the House possessed; but if it was imperfect, he did not see the difficulties some gentlemen mentioned, in altering and amending it when experience shall have pointed out its defects.

Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the motion now brought forward for the sake of accommodation, although he thought the bill would stand better without any limitation clause whatever.

Mr. PAGE was against the latter part of this clause. It had been justly said, that the bill would be oppressive; but, from the necessity of the times, the people will submit to it. Shall we not let them see the end of their burthen in the law itself? Are they to look into another bill for that purpose? Perhaps after the Senate have agreed to this act, they may oppose the limitation in the subsequent one; they may insist upon having this in perpetuity, and then the object which the House have in view will be defeated.

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, moved a division of the question.

Mr. LEE wished to strike out that part of the motion which related to the exception.

Mr. LIVERMORE seconded Mr. LEE.

The question was put, and that part of the clause lost.

The question now stood as originally introduced to the House.

The previous question was then demanded by five members: Shall the main question be now put? And on the question, shall the main question be now put? it was resolved in the affirmative.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the amendment proposed to the said bill, it was resolved in the affirmative--ayes 41, noes 8.

The ayes and noes being called for by one-fifth of the members present:

Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

Messrs. Abraham Baldwin, Egbert Benson, Theodorick Bland,
Ædanus Burke, Daniel Carroll, Isaac Coles, Benjamin Contee,
Thomas Fitzsimons, William Floyd, George Gale, Elbridge
Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Samuel Griffin,
Jonathan Grout, John Hathorn, Daniel Heister, Benjamin
Huntington, James Jackson, Richard Bland Lee, George
Leonard, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, junior, Andrew
Moore, Peter Muhlenberg, John Page, Josiah Parker, George
Partridge, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer, Joshua Seney, Thomas
Scott, William Smith, William Smith, of South Carolina,
Jonathan Sturgis, Peter Sylvester, Jonathan Trumbull, Thos.
Tudor Tucker, John Vining, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander
White, and Henry Wynkoop.

Those who voted in the negative, are,

Messrs. Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader,
George Clymer, John Lawrence, Roger Sherman, Thomas
Sinnickson, and George Thatcher.

The clause being added, it was agreed to fill the blank so as to read the first day of June, 1796.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and read the third time to-day.[24]

MONDAY, May 18.

_Resolved_, That leave be given to bring in a bill
concerning the importation of certain persons into the
United States, prior to the year 1808, and that Mr. PARKER,
Mr. SINNICKSON, and Mr. MUHLENBERG, do prepare and bring in
the same.

TUESDAY, May 19.

_Executive Departments._

On motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--I rise, Mr. Chairman, with diffidence, to introduce a subject to the consideration of the committee, which I had hopes would have been brought forward by an abler hand; the pressing necessity of it must alone be my excuse. The great executive departments which were in existence under the late confederation, are now at an end, at least so far as not to be able to conduct the business of the United States. If we take up the present constitution, we shall find it contemplates departments of an executive nature in aid of the President: it then remains for us to carry this intention into effect, which I take it will be best done by settling principles for organizing them in this place, and afterwards appoint a select committee to bring in a bill for the same.

I need say little to convince gentlemen of the necessity which presses us into a pursuit of this measure. They know that our national debt is considerable; the interest on our foreign loans, and the instalments due, amount to two millions of dollars. This arrearage, together with the domestic debt, is of great magnitude, and it will be attended with the most dreadful consequences to let these affairs run into confusion and ruin, for want of proper regulations to keep them in order.

I shall move the committee therefore to come to some such resolution as this: That an officer be established for the management of the finances of the United States, at the head of which shall be an officer to be denominated the Secretary of Finance. I am not tenacious of the style, perhaps some other may be proper, but the object I have in view is to establish the department; after which we may go on to narrate the duties of the officer, and accommodate the name to the acts he is to perform. The departments under the late constitution are not to be models for us to form ours upon by reason of the essential change which has taken place in the Government, and the new distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

If gentlemen then agree with me so far, I shall proceed to restrain the Secretary of Finance, and all persons under him, from being concerned in trade or commerce, and make it his duty to superintend the treasury and the finances of the United States, examine the public debts and engagements, inspect the collection and expenditure of the revenue, and to form and digest plans for its improvement. There may be other duties which gentlemen may add, as I do not pretend to have perfectly enumerated them all. After this point is settled, we may then go to the consideration of the War Department, and the Department of Foreign Affairs; but, for the present, I would wish to confine ourselves to the Department of Finance.

Mr. BENSON wished the committee to consider what he judged to be a previous question, namely, how many departments there should be established? He approved of the division mentioned by the gentleman; but would, with his leave, move that there be established in aid of the Chief Magistrate, three executive departments, to be severally denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and War. After determining this question, if it was a proper division, the committee might proceed to enumerate the duties which should be attached to each.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he could apologize for not bringing the business on in another way. It seemed to be a settled point in the House that a Committee of the Whole was the proper place for determining principles before they were sent elsewhere; he had therefore adopted that mode on the present occasion, though his own judgment would incline him to pursue that last mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND.) He conceived the necessity of having such an office was indisputable; the Government could not be carried on without it; but there may be a question with respect to the mode in which the business of the office shall be conducted; there may also be a question respecting the constitution of it, but none with respect to the establishment of either of the three departments he had mentioned.

Mr. BENSON said, his motion was founded upon the constitutional division of these powers; the constitution contemplated them, because it gave the President the right of requiring the opinion of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. If gentlemen were inclined to waive the determination for the present, he had no objection; it was certainly a subject of great importance, and required time for consideration.

Mr. VINING thought the gentleman should have added another department, viz: the Home Department. The territorial possessions of the United States, and the domestic affairs, would be objects of the greatest magnitude, and he suspected would render it essentially requisite to establish such a one.

Mr. BOUDINOT wished to confine the question to the Department of Finance.

A motion was made by Mr. BLAND for the committee's rising.

Mr. MADISON hoped they would not rise until the principles were settled. He thought it much better to determine the outlines of all business in a Committee of the Whole. He was satisfied it would be found, on experience, to shorten their deliberations. If the gentlemen who had offered motions to the committee would withdraw them, he would offer one which he judged likely to embrace the intentions of both gentlemen.

Mr. BENSON withdrew his motion, and Mr. MADISON moved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that there shall be established an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, at the head of which there shall be an officer, to be called the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and to be removable by the President.

That there shall be a Treasury Department, &c.

That there shall be a War Department, &c.

Mr. VINING seconded the motion, and offered to amend it, by adding the Domestic Department, _mutatis mutandis_. He said this department, in his opinion, was of absolute necessity, more requisite than either of the other three, except the Department of Finance; the present and increasing duties of such a department will oblige them to make the establishment.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not prepared to decide on the question even as now brought forward, nor did he see a reason why the Department of Foreign Affairs was placed at the head of the list. He thought the Treasury Department of more importance, and consequently deserved the precedence.

As to the Domestic Department just mentioned by the gentleman from Delaware, he thought its duties might be blended with the others, and thereby save the United States the expense of one grand department. If the gentleman, therefore, would wait to see what were the duties assigned to them severally, he would be able to judge respecting his motion with greater propriety.

Mr. VINING withdrew his motion for the present.

And the committee agreed to the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and placing at the head thereof an officer to be called the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; but when they came to the mode of appointing the officer,

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) moved to strike out the words "who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." He conceived the words to be unnecessary; besides, it looked as if they were conferring power, which was not the case, for the constitution had expressly given the power of appointment in the words there used. He also objected to the subsequent part of this paragraph, because it declared the President alone to have the power of removal.

Mr. PAGE saw no impropriety in passing an act to carry into execution the views of the constitution, and therefore had no objection to repeat those words in the resolution. He thought if the committee stopped there, they would be under no difficulty respecting the propriety of their measure, but if they went further they might meet with considerable embarrassment.

Mr. MADISON remarked, that as there was a discretionary power in the Legislature to give the privilege to the President alone of appointing inferior officers, there could be no injury in declaring in the resolution the constitutional mode of appointing the heads of departments; however, if gentlemen were uneasy, he would not object to strike it out.

Mr. LEE thought this officer was an inferior officer; the President was the great and responsible officer of the Government; this was only to aid him in performing his executive duties; hence he conceived the power of appointing to be in the gift of the Legislature, and therefore the words were proper.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)--This officer is at the head of a department, and one of those who are to advise the President; the inferior officers mentioned in the constitution are clerks and other subordinate persons. The words are only a repetition of the words in the constitution, and are consequently superfluous.

The question was taken on striking out those words, and carried in the affirmative.

The committee proceeded to the discussion of the power of the President to remove this officer.

Mr. SMITH said, he had doubts whether the officer could be removed by the President. He apprehended he could only be removed by an impeachment before the Senate, and that, being once in office, he must remain there until convicted upon impeachment. He wished gentlemen would consider this point well before they decided it.

Mr. MADISON did not concur with the gentleman in his interpretation of the constitution. What, said he, would be the consequence of such construction? It would in effect establish every officer of the Government on the firm tenure of good behavior; not the heads of departments only, but all the inferior officers of those departments, would hold their offices during good behavior, and that to be judged of by one branch of the Legislature only on the impeachment of the other. If the constitution means this by its declarations to be the case, we must submit; but I should lament it as a fatal error interwoven in the system, and one that would ultimately prove its destruction. I think the inference would not arise from a fair construction of the words of that instrument.

It is very possible that an officer who may not incur the displeasure of the President, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place. The power of this House may reach him by the means of an impeachment, and he may be removed even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the constitution was intended as a supplemental security for the good behavior of the public officers. It is possible the case I have stated may happen. Indeed, it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the President himself; surely, therefore, it may happen to a subordinate officer, whose bad actions may be connived at or overlooked by the President. Hence the people have an additional security in this constitutional provision.

I think it absolutely necessary that the President should have the power of removing from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the constitutionality of the declaration I have no manner of doubt.

Mr. BENSON.--If we refer to the constitution for light on this subject, it will appear evident that the objection is not well founded. The objection is this, that an officer ought not to be removed but by impeachment; then every officer is appointed during good behavior. Now, the constitution expressly declares, that the Judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. If it is declared, that they are to hold their offices by this particular tenure, it follows that the other officers of the Government should hold them only at pleasure. He thought this an important question, and one in which they were obliged to take the constitution by construction. For although it detailed the mode of appointing to office, it was not explicit as to the supersedure; this clause, therefore, would be a mere declaration of the legislative construction on this point. He thought the importance and necessity of making the declaration, that the Chief Magistrate might supersede any civil officer was evident, and he should therefore vote in favor of the clause as it stood.

Mr. VINING said, there were no negative words in the constitution to preclude the President from the exercise of this power; but there was a strong presumption that he was invested with it: because it was declared, that all executive power should be vested in him, except in cases where it is otherwise qualified; as, for example, he could not fully exercise his executive power in making treaties, unless with the advice and consent of the Senate--the same in appointing to office.

He viewed the power of removal, by impeachment, as a supplementary security to the people against the continuance of improper persons in office; but it did not consist with the nature of things, that this should be the only mode of removal; it was attended with circumstances that would render it insufficient to secure the public safety, which was a primary object in every Government. Witness a transatlantic instance of its incompetency--he meant the famous case of Mr. Hastings. With what difficulty was that prosecution carried on! What a length of time did it take to determine! What is to be done while the impeachment is depending? For, according to the ideas of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) he cannot be removed but on conviction. If he cannot be removed, I should suppose he cannot be suspended; and what security have the people against the machinations of a bad man in office? He had no doubt but the constitution gave this power to the President; but if doubts were entertained, he thought it prudent to make a legislative declaration of the sentiments of Congress on this point. He was therefore in favor of the clause.

Mr. BLAND thought the power given by the constitution to the Senate, respecting the appointment to office, would be rendered almost nugatory if the President had the power of removal. If the first nomination of the President should be disapproved by the Senate, and the second agreed to, he had nothing to do but wait the adjournment of Congress, and then fill the vacancy with his favorite; who, by thus getting into the possession of the office, would have a considerable chance of permanency in it. He thought it consistent with the nature of things, that the power which appointed should remove; and would not object to a declaration in the resolution, if the words were added, that the President shall remove from office, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He agreed that the removal by impeachment was a supplementary aid favorable to the people; but he was clearly of opinion, that the same power that appointed had, or ought to have, the power of removal.

Mr. JACKSON wished the motion had been referred to a sub-committee to digest: it seemed to him they were building the house before the plan was drawn. He wished to see the system reduced to writing, that he might leisurely judge of the necessity and propriety of each office and its particular duties.

With respect to the question before the House he was of opinion that if the House had the power of removal by the constitution, they could not give it out of their hands; because every power recognized by the constitution must remain where it was placed by that instrument. But the words in the constitution declare, in positive terms, that all civil officers shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, high crimes and misdemeanors; and however long it may take to decide, in this way it must be done. He did not think the case of Mr. Hastings ought to be brought forward as a precedent for conducting such business in the United States. He believed, whenever an impeachment was brought before the Senate, they would proceed with all imaginable speed to its termination. He should, in case of impeachment, be willing to go so far as to give the power of suspension to the President, and he thought this all the security which the public safety required; it would prevent the party from doing further mischief. He agreed with the gentleman in the general principle, that the body who appointed ought to have the power of removal, as the body which enacts laws can repeal them; but if the power is deposited in any particular department by the constitution, it is out of the power of the House to alter it.

Mr. MADISON did not conceive it was a proper construction of the constitution to say, that there was no other mode of removing from office than that by impeachment; he believed this, as applied to the Judges, might be the case, but he could never imagine it extended in the manner which gentlemen contended for. He believed they would not assert, that any part of the constitution declared, that the only way to remove should be by impeachment; the contrary might be inferred, because Congress may establish offices by law; therefore, most certainly, it is in the discretion of the Legislature to say upon what terms the office shall be held, either during good behavior or during pleasure. Under this construction, the principles of the constitution would be reconcilable in every part; but under that of the gentleman from South Carolina, it would be incongruous and faulty. He wondered how the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JACKSON) would reconcile his principles so far as to permit the President to suspend the officer. He begged his colleague (Mr. BLAND) to consider the inconvenience his doctrine would occasion, by keeping the Senate constantly sitting, in order to give their assent to the removal of an officer; they might see there would be a constant probability of the Senate being called upon to exercise this power, consequently they could not be a moment absent. Now, he did not believe the constitution imposed any such duty upon them; why, then, said he, shall we enjoin it, especially at such an expense of the public treasure?

Mr. BOUDINOT would by no means infringe the constitution by any act of his, for if he thought this motion would lead the committee beyond the powers assigned to the Legislature, he would give it a decided negative; but, on an impartial examination of that instrument, he could not see the least foundation for such an objection; however, he was glad the question had come forward, because he wished to give a legislative construction to this part of the constitution.

The gentlemen who denied the power of the President to remove from office, founded their opinion upon the fourth section of the second article of the constitution, where it is declared, that all officers shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason or bribery. If their construction is admissible, and no officer whatever is to be removed in any other way than by impeachment, we shall be in a deplorable situation indeed. Consider the extent of the United States, and the difficulty of conducting a prosecution against an officer, who, with the witnesses, resides a thousand miles from the seat of Government. But suppose the officer should, by sickness, or some other accident, be rendered incapable of performing the functions of the office, must he be continued? And yet it is to be apprehended, that such a disability would not furnish any good ground for impeachment; it could not be laid as treason or bribery, nor perhaps as a high crime or misdemeanor. Would gentlemen narrow the operation of the constitution in this manner, and render it impossible to be executed?

Mr. WHITE thought no office under the Government was to be held during pleasure, except those which are to be constituted by law; but all the heads of departments are to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He conceived that, in all cases, the party who appointed ought to judge of the removal, except in those cases which by the constitution are excepted; and in those cases impeachment and conviction are the only mode by which they can be removed.

Mr. THATCHER asked, why the Judges were particularly mentioned in the constitution as holding their offices during good behavior, if it was not supposed that, without this express declaration in their favor, they, in common with all other officers not immediately chosen by the State Legislatures and the people, would hold them during pleasure? The clause respecting impeachments was particularly calculated for removing unworthy officers of the other description. Holding this construction of the constitution to be right, he was in favor of the clause as it stood.

Mr. SYLVESTER thought the constitution ought to have a liberal construction, and therefore was of opinion that the clause relative to the removal by impeachment was intended as a check upon the President, as already mentioned by some gentlemen, and to secure to the people, by means of their representatives, a constitutional mode of obtaining justice against peculators and defaulters in office, who might be protected by the persons appointing them. He apprehended the doctrine held out by the gentleman from South Carolina would involve the Government in great difficulties, if not in ruin, and he did not see it was a necessary construction of the constitution. Why, then, should the House search for a meaning, to make the constitution inconsistent with itself, when a more rational one is at hand? He, however, inclined at present to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND,) who thought the Senate ought to be joined with the President in the removal, as they were joined by the constitution in the appointment to office.

Mr. GOODHUE was decidedly against combining the Senate in this business. He wished to make the President as responsible as possible for the conduct of the officers who were to execute the duties of his own branch of the Government. If the removal and appointment were placed in the hands of a numerous body, the responsibility would be lessened. He admitted there was a propriety in allowing the Senate to advise the President in the choice of officers; this the constitution had ordained for wise purposes; but there could be no real advantage arising from the concurrence of the Senate to the removal, but great disadvantages. It might beget faction and party, which would prevent the Senate from paying proper attention to the public business. Upon the whole, he concluded the community would be served by the best men when the Senate concurred with the President in the appointment; but if any oversight was committed, it could best be corrected by the superintending agent. It was the peculiar duty of the President to watch over the executive officers; but of what avail would be his inspection, unless he had a power to correct the abuses he might discover.

Mr. GERRY.--The constitution provides for the appointment of the public officers in this manner: The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. Now, if there be no other clause respecting the appointment, I shall be glad to see how the heads of departments are to be removed by the President alone. What clause is it that gives this power in express terms? I believe there is none such. If there is a power of removal, besides that by impeachment, it must vest somewhere. It must vest in the President, or in the President and Senate, or in the President, Senate, and House of Representatives. Now, there is no clause which expressly vests it in the President. I believe no gentleman contends it is in this House, because that would be that mingling of the executive and legislative powers gentlemen deprecate. I presume, then, gentlemen will grant, that if there is such a power, it vests with the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who are the body that appoints. I think we ought to be cautious how we step in between the President and the Senate, to abridge the power of the one, or increase the other. If the power of removal vests where I suppose, we, by this declaration, undertake to transfer it to the President alone.

It has been mentioned, that it is proper to give this power to the President, in order to make him more fully responsible for this officer. I am for supporting the President to the utmost of my power, and making him as responsible as possible. I would therefore vest every gift of office, in the power of the Legislature, in the President alone; but I cannot think we ought to attempt to give him authority to remove from office, in cases where the constitution has placed it in other hands.

Mr. LIVERMORE considered this as a constitutional question, and was of opinion, that the same power which appointed an officer, had the right of removal also, unless it was restrained by an express declaration to the contrary. As the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, is empowered to appoint ambassadors, certainly they have a right to remove them and appoint others. In the case of the judges, they must be appointed for life, or during good behavior. He had no idea, that it could ever enter into the heart of any man living, that all officers appointed under the constitution were to have a perpetuity in office. The judges themselves would not have had this right, if it had not been expressly given by the constitution, but would be removable in like manner with ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. He took it, therefore, in the present case, that the President and the Senate would have the power of removing the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The only question, therefore, which appears to be before the committee is, whether we shall give this power to the President alone? And with that he thought they had nothing to do. He supposed, if the clause was left out, the President and the Senate would proceed, as directed by the constitution, to appoint the officer; and hereafter, if they judged it necessary, would remove him; but if they neglected to do so, when it was necessary, by reason of his misdemeanors, this House would impeach him, and so get rid of him on conviction.

Mr. BLAND.--It seems to be agreed on all hands, that there does exist a power of removal; the contrary doctrine would be a solecism in Government. If an officer embezzles the public money, or neglects or refuses to do the duties of his appointment, can it be supposed there is no way of getting rid of such a person? He was certain it was essentially necessary such a power should be lodged somewhere, or it would be impossible to carry the Government into execution. Their inquiries were therefore reduced to this point: Does it reside, agreeably to the constitution, in the President, or in the President and the Senate? The constitution declares, that the President and the Senate shall appoint, and it naturally follows, that the power which appoints shall remove also. What would be the consequence of the removal by the President alone, he had already mentioned, and need not repeat. A new President might, by turning out the great officers, bring about a change of the ministry, and throw the affairs of the Union into disorder: would not this, in fact, make the President a monarch, and give him absolute power over all the great departments of Government? It signifies nothing that the Senate have a check over the appointment, because he can remove, and tire out the good disposition of the Senate.

Mr. CLYMER said, the power of removal was an executive power, and as such belonged to the President alone, by the express words of the constitution: "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Senate were not an executive body; they were a legislative one. It was true, in some instances, they held a qualified check over the executive power, but that was in consequence of an express declaration in the constitution; without such declaration, they would not have been called upon for advice and consent in the case of appointment. Why, then, shall we extend their power to control the removal which is naturally in the Executive, unless it is likewise expressly declared in the constitution?

The question on adding the words "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," as moved by Mr. BLAND, was put and lost.

The question was now taken, and carried by a considerable majority, in favor of declaring the power of removal to be in the President.

WEDNESDAY, May 20.

_Treasury Department._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. TRUMBULL in the chair. The resolution for establishing the Treasury Department being under consideration:

Mr. GERRY.--We are now called upon, Mr. Speaker, to deliberate, whether we shall place this all-important department in the hands of a single individual, or in a Board of Commissioners. I presume the gentleman, who has brought forward this string of propositions, means, that this officer shall have power to examine into the state of the public debt and expenses, to receive and disburse the revenue, to devise plans for its improvement and expansion, and, in short, to superintend and direct the receipts and expenditure, and govern the finances of the United States; having under him officers to do the subordinate business of registering and recording his transactions, and a Comptroller to control his operations with respect to the accounts and vouchers.

Before this committee proceed one step farther in this business, they ought seriously to consider the situation of this country, and what will be the consequence of appointing such an officer; consider how it will affect the public in general, the revenue, and even the Government itself. He is declared, in the list of duties assigned him in the paper read yesterday by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. BENSON,) to have the power to form and digest the accounts, and to control all the officers of the department. It is evident, that we put his integrity to the trial, by such an arrangement. If he is disposed to embezzle the public money, it will be out of the power of the Executive itself to check or control him in his nefarious practices. The extension of his business to the collectors of at least fifty seaports, (over whom the naval officer can have no control, with respect to the money received,) will furnish abundant opportunities for peculation. In addition to the moneys arising from the impost, he may have to do with large sums derived from other quarters, from the sale of the vacant lands, the money of defaulters now due to the United States, and the revenue arising from taxes and excises. Admit these innumerable opportunities for defrauding the revenue, without check or control, and it is next to impossible he should remain unsullied in his reputation, or innoxious with respect to misapplying his trust.

Other great opportunities may arise in case of an anticipation of the public revenue; or, if it is necessary to prevent the injury which a rapid depreciation of the securities would occasion to public credit, he may be employed in purchasing them, in order to advance the credit of the Union. But what is to prevent the greatest imposition in this business? Charging them to the public at their nominal value, it is not in the power of the Government to check this species of speculation; what then is the situation of your officer? He must subject himself to suspicion: indeed, it is as much as his reputation is worth to come into a place of this kind; he can hardly preserve his integrity. His honor, credit, and character, must inevitably be injured. He cannot prove himself innocent of the suspicion, because it is the negative side of the question. He can offer nothing more in his defence than a mere denial of the crime.

There is another point which ought to be well considered: This officer is to digest and form the accounts. He can consequently give the business such complexity, as to render it impossible to detect his impositions; and as the inferior officers, who might discover the fraud, are to be appointed by the principal, will they not consequently be men after his own heart?