Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/188

 The Power of Removal from Federal Offices. March 4, 1789. The subject was introduced to the consideration of the House of Rep resentatives by James Madison, of Virginia, who had been a member of the Constitu tional Convention, and who afterwards be came President of the United States. On May 19, the House being in committee of the whole on the state of the Union, Mr. Boudinot, of New Jersey, moved " that an office 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. ' " After debate, the motion was withdrawn at the request of Mr. Madison, who moved "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. " The latter clause of this resolution was strenuously op posed by Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, and others, on the ground that the Constitution had not vested the power of removal in the President, that Congress had no au thority to confer it upon him, and that the only constitutional mode of removing an officer is by impeachment. Mr. Bland, of Virginia, moved to amend the resolution by adding the words, " by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, " which amend ment was rejected. After further debate the resolution was adopted by a large majority; and on May 21, a committee was appointed to draw up and to report to the House, bills for the organization of the Department of War, the Department of Foreign Affairs (since called the Department of State), and the Department of the Treasury. On June 2, the committee reported a bill to establish the Department of War, and a bill to establish the Department of Foreign Affairs. The bill to establish the Treasury Department was reported on the 4th of the

165

same month. Each of these bills contained a clause providing that the head of the de partment might be removed from office by the President. The bill for the organization of the Department of Foreign Affairs was considered in committee of the whole on June 16, when Mr. White, of Virginia, moved to strike out the words " to be removable from office by the President of the United States." This amendment was debated for three days and finally rejected by a vote of 34 to 20. Had the bill passed in this form, this clause would have been construed as a legislative grant of power to the Executive, which the Constitution had not conferred upon him, and which might at any time be revoked by Congress. But the friends of the measure were not satisfied with this construction of the Con stitution. They contended that, inasmuch as by its terms, the power of removal be longs to the President, it was unnecessary and improper to attempt to confer it upon him by act of Congress. Others held that, if the Constitution had not vested the power in the Executive, it was beyond the province of the legislature to confer it upon him, and still further, that if the contrary were true, they were not bound to express any opinion on the subject. A majority of the members, however, thought it to be necessary to make some provision in regard to the matter. Accordingly, on June 22, Mr. Benson, of New York, proposed an amendment to the bill, which was designed to reconcile and to harmonize the various and conflicting views entertained by the members of the House. The second section of the act provides, that there shall be an inferior officer in the depart ment, who, in case of vacancy, shall have charge of the books and the papers apper taining to the office. Mr. Benson moved to amend the section by inserting these words, "whenever the said principal officer shall be removed from office by the Presi dent of the United States, or in any other case of vacancy. " This amendment was