FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   732   733   734   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743  
744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   >>   >|  
g the enumerated executive powers, or fairly implied from some one or more of them. It cannot be implied from the general words. The power of appointment was not left to be so implied; why, then, should the power of removal have been so left? They are both closely connected; one is indispensable to the other; why, then, was one carefully expressed, defined, and limited, and not one word said about the other? Sir, I think the whole matter is sufficiently plain. Nothing is said in the Constitution about the power of removal, because it is not a separate and distinct power. It is part of the power of appointment, naturally going with it or necessarily resulting from it. The Constitution or the laws may separate these powers, it is true, in a particular case, as is done in respect to the judges, who, though appointed by the President and Senate, cannot be removed at the pleasure of either or of both. So a statute, in prescribing the tenure of any other office, may place the officer beyond the reach of the appointing power. But where no other tenure is prescribed, and officers hold their places at will, that will is necessarily the will of the appointing power; because the exercise of the power of appointment at once displaces such officers. The power of placing one man in office necessarily implies the power of turning another out. If one man be Secretary of State, and another be appointed, the first goes out by the mere force of the appointment of the other, without any previous act of removal whatever. And this is the practice of the government, and has been, from the first. In all the removals which have been made, they have generally been effected simply by making other appointments. I cannot find a case to the contrary. There is no such thing as any distinct official act of removal. I have looked into the practice, and caused inquiries to be made in the departments, and I do not learn that any such proceeding is known as an entry or record of the removal of an officer from office; and the President could only act, in such cases, by causing some proper record or entry to be made, as proof of the fact of removal. I am aware that there have been some cases in which notice has been sent to persons in office that their services are, or will be, after a given day, dispensed with. These are usually cases in which the object is, not to inform the incumbent that he is _removed_, but to tell him that a successor either is, or by a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   719   720   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   732   733   734   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743  
744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

removal

 

office

 
appointment
 

necessarily

 
implied
 

record

 

separate

 

officers

 

removed

 

powers


tenure

 
officer
 

President

 

appointing

 
appointed
 
distinct
 
practice
 

Constitution

 

looked

 
official

government
 

generally

 

contrary

 

appointments

 
removals
 
making
 

effected

 

simply

 

services

 

persons


notice
 

dispensed

 

incumbent

 

inform

 

object

 

proceeding

 

departments

 

successor

 

caused

 
inquiries

previous

 
proper
 
causing
 

places

 

naturally

 
Nothing
 

sufficiently

 
resulting
 

respect

 
matter