Amendments to the Constitution, [8 June] 1789 — reading text

department. If the gentleman therefore would wait to fee what were the duties affigned lo them feverally, he would be able to judge refpeding his motion with greacer propriety. JVlr. Vining withdrew his motion for the prefent, • And the committee agreed to the eftablifhment of the department of foreign affairs, and placing at the head there- of an officer to be called the fecretary ol foreigi; affa rs, but w hen they came to the mode of appointing the officer, Mr Smith (of South-Caroltna) Moved to ilrike out the words '^ who Ihall be appointed by the preiident, by ai'd with the advice and conlentcfthe fenate." He conceived the words to be unnecefiary, be. lidts it lookeil as if they were confering power which was not the cafe, for the conlfitution had exprefsly given the power of appointment in the words there ufed He alfo objefted to the fuolequent part of this paragraph, becaufe it declared the preiident aloiie to have the power cf re«L Rioval. k. i;89. Of C O N G R E S S. -ji Mr. Page Saw no impi-opriety in palling an acl to carry into exe- cution tiie view* of the coniiitution, and therefore had no objection to repeating thole words in the relolution. He thought if the committee Hopped there they would be un- der no difficuhy reipec^mg the ju-opriety of their mealure but if they went further they niiohc meet with conlidera bJe embarraflment. Mr. Madisom Remarked that as tiiere was a difcretionary power in the legiflature to give the privilege to the prelident alone of appointing inferior officers, there could be no injury in declaring in the reflution the coriitiiutional mode of ap- pointing the heads of dep::rtinerts, however if gentlemen were uneafy he would not object to Itriking it oat. Mr. Lke Thought this officer was an interior officer ; the prefi- dcnt was the great and refponlible officer of the govern- ment, 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 legillature, and therefore the words were projler. Mr. Smith (of South-Carolina) This officer is at the head of a department, ar.d one of thofe who are to advife the prelident ; the inferior officers mentioned in the conltitution, are clerks and other lubor- dinace perfons. The weirds are only a repetidon of the words in the conititution, and are confequently fuper- fiuous. The queftion was taken on ftriking out thofe words and earricd in the affirmative. The committee proceeded to the difcnfTion of the power ®f the prelident to remol^e this officer. Mr. Smith Said he had doubts whether the officer could be removed by the prelident he apprehended he could only be remo- ; ved by an impeachment beiore the fenate, and that being o«Ke in office, he mull remain there until convided upon impeachment he wiihed gentlemen would coniider this ; point well before they decided it. Mr. Madison Did not concur with the gentleman in his interpretation of the conftitution, what faid he w ou!d be the confcquence of fuch conltrurtion? it would in eilecl: eftablilh every of- ficer of the governaient on the firm tenure oi good beh^- 3-52 DEBATES viour, not the heads of departments onlv, but all the infe^ A.1789. rior officers of thole departments would hold their offices during good behaviour, and that to be jueiged of by one branch of the Icgiflature only on the impeachment of the other. If the conllitution means this by its declarations to be the cafe we mull fubmit, but I Ihould lament it as a fatal error interwove in the fyftem and one that would ultimate- ly prove its delfruftion. 1 think the inference would not ariie from a fair conftru6tion of the words of that inltru- liient. It is very poffible that an officer who may not incur the difpleafure ofthe preiident, may be guilty of aftions that ought to forfeit his place ; the power of this houfe may I'each him by the means q'f an impeachment, and he may be removed even againft the will of the preiident; fo that the declaration in the conifitution, was intended as a fupplemen- tal fecurity for the good behaviour of the public officers, it is poilible the caie I have ihued may happen, indeed it Hiay perhaps on fome occafion be found neceli'ary to impeach* the preiident himfelf ; furely therefore it may happen to a fubordinate officer, whofe bad aftions may be connived at or overlooked by the prefident ; hence the people have an additional fecuritv in this conltitutional provifion. I tliink i: abfolutely neceffary that the preiident fliould liave the power of removing from office ; it will make him, hi a peculiar manner, refponfible for their conduft, and fub- jciit him to impeachment himfeif, if he fufFers them to per- petrate with impunity high crimes or mifdenieanours againli: the United States, or neglecls to fuperincend their conducl, fo as to check their excefles. On the coi> i^jtuiionaliiy of the declaration I have no manner of doubt. Mr. Benson. If we refer to the conftitution for light on this fubjed", it will appear evident that the objeftion is not well founded. The objeclicn is this, that an officer ought not to be re» jMovedbut by impeachment; then every officer is appoint- ed during good behaviour. Now, the conllitution ex- prefsly declares, that the judges, both of the iupreme and hifenor courts, Ihall hold tlieir offices during good beha- viour. If it is declared, that they are to hold their offices hy this particular tenure, it follows, that the other officers €>f the government Ihould hold them only at pleafure. He thought this an important queltion, and one in vv/hich they were obliged to take the conlfitution by conftrntT:ion. For r^rhoun-hit detailed the mode of appointing to office^ it v,<i5 A. 1789. Of C O N G Tt E S S. 353 riot explicit as to the fupercedure : this claufe, therefore, would be a mere declaration of the legiflative conftrudioii on this point. He thought the importance and necelhty of making the declaration, that the chief raagiftrate mighc fnpercede any civil officer was evident, and he fhould there- fore vote in favor of the claufe as it Itood. Mr. ViNiNG Said, there v/ere no negative words in the conflitution to preclude the prefident from the exercife of this power, but there was a ftrong prefumption that he was invefted \Vith it ; becaui'e, it was declared, that all executive power ihould be vefied in him, except in cales where it is other- wife qualified ; as, for example, he could not fully exercife his executive power in making treaties, nnlefs with th,e ad- vice and confent of the lenate — the fame in appointing to office. He vievv'ed the povv'er of removal, by impeachment, as a fupplementary fecurity to the people againft the continu- ance of improper perfons in oS}cc ; but it did not coniilt wi:h the nature of things, that thisfliould be the only mode of removal it was attended with circumrtances that would ; render it infufficient to fecure the public fafety, v/liich was a primary objeft in every government; witnef; a iranf- Atlantic inffance of its incompetency, he meant the famous cafe of Mr. Haftings with what difficulty is that profccn- : tion carried on? what a length of time will it take to de- termine 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 conviclion ; if he cannot be removed, I ihonid fup- pofe he cannot be fufpended, and what fecurity have thr: people againlt the machinations of a bad man in office i He had no duubt but the conflitution gave this power to tlie prelideiit but if doubts were entertained, he thought it ; prudent to make a legiflative declaration of the fentimcnts of congrefs on this point. He was therefore in favor of the claufe, Mr. Bland Thought the power given by the conflitution to the fenate, refpecling the appointment to oflice, would be ren- dered almoit nugatory if the prcfident had the power of removal. I f the firfl nomination of the prefident fhould be difapproved by the ienate, and tl'ie fecond agreed to, he had nothing to do but wait the adjournment of congrels^ aind then fill the vacancy with his iavorite, who, by thus Y Y  ^54 ^^ '^' BATES A. 1789, would have a can- (vetting into the poficirion of th;.- office, luierable c'lance of permanency in it. He thought it con- ii. tent wiih fhe nature of things, that the power which a; pointed Ihould remove and would not objed to a decla- ; raiiun in ihe relolution, if the words were added, that the prclidejit Ihalf remove from office, by and with the advice and confent of the fenate. He agreed that the reinoval by iiiipeac!J:nent xas a fupplementary aid favorable to the pec^pic^ but hi; vvas clearly of opinion, that the fame power that aE|;po:ire'J had, or ought to have, the power of re- !i;ovai. -vJr. Jackson Pd the luoiion had been referred to a fub-commir- Tce to digeli it feemed^to him they were building the : houfe' before the plan Was dra^vn. He wilhed to fee the iyOe:!^. reduced to writing;, that he might leifurely judge of th-^' ncc'^iliry and propriety of each office and its particular \V]fn.r'Syc£'c to the queilion before the houle, he wai of opitsici,, that if the houfe had the power of removal by thec^jViit'.Kion, they cculd not give it out of their hands; , becaivje fyery power recognized by the conllitutiou iiuilt Tpm'p rt here it vv-as placed by/hat inftrument. But the worc/s in the ccnftitution declare, hi poiitive terms, that ai'. civil Gffice5:s ihali be removed from office on impeach- ;i---=,.r :„- ::';d conviction of, high crimes and mifdeuiea- ! : iiowever long it may take to decide in this v-ay ;. i^uit be doi^e. lie did not think the 'cafe^of Mr. Haili if;% ought fo be brought for^vard as a precedent for c';\' i< i::ng fnch biKinefs in the United States. He believed w :; r vcr- an impeachment v.-as brought before th.e lenate, t:;cv - ould proceed with all imaginable Ipeed.to -its termi- na: r He.,. iliould, be wilung to in cafe of impeachment, go i) far as to |5ive the power of fufpcnfion to the prefi-- lie r, :!!^,d he thought this all thefecuriiy which the public li. ctv rcqnired, it'\vould prevent the party from doing f.nher uj'ifchief. Ke agreed with the gentleman in the -