nd completely abandoned the requirement
obliging him to report to the Senate "the evidence and reasons" for his
action.

With these modifications and with all branches of the Government in
political harmony, and in the absence of partisan incentive to captious
obstruction, the law as it was left by the amendment of 1869 was much
less destructive of Executive discretion. And yet the great general and
patriotic citizen who on the 4th day of March, 1869, assumed the duties
of Chief Executive, and for whose freer administration of his high
office the most hateful restraints of the law of 1867 were, on the 5th
day of April, 1869, removed, mindful of his obligation to defend and
protect every prerogative of his great trust, and apprehensive of the
injury threatened the public service in the continued operation of these
statutes even in their modified form, in his first message to Congress
advised their repeal and set forth their unconstitutional character and
hurtful tendency in the following language:

It may be well to mention here the embarrassment possible to arise from
leaving on the statute books the so-called "tenure-of-office acts," and
to earnestly recommend their total repeal. It could not have been the
intention of the framers of the Constitution, when providing that
appointments made by the President should receive the consent of the
Senate, that the latter should have the power to retain in office
persons placed there by Federal appointment against the will of the
President. The law is inconsistent with a faithful and efficient
administration of the Government. What faith can an Executive put in
officials forced upon him, and those, too, whom he has suspended for
reason? How will such officials be likely to serve an Administration
which they know does not trust them?

I am unable to state whether or not this recommendation for a repeal of
these laws has been since repeated. If it has not, the reason can
probably be found in the experience which demonstrated the fact that the
necessities of the political situation but rarely developed their
vicious character.

And so it happens that after an existence of nearly twenty years of
almost innocuous desuetude these laws are brought forth--apparently the
repealed as well as the unrepealed--and put in the way of an Executive
who is willing, if permitted, to attempt an improvement in the methods
of administration.

The constitutionality of t