Democratic Sentinel, Volume 2, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 April 1878 — CADET APPOINTMENTS. [ARTICLE]

CADET APPOINTMENTS.

-An Unsuccessful Call lor an Opinion. In reply to a resolution of Congress, requesting the United States Attorney General to inform the House of Representatives whether in his opinion the annual appointment of ten cadets-at-large made by the President respectively to the Military and Naval Academies have been in pursuance of law or by custom, and, if by custom, how long it Das been construed as establishing such power of appointment, the Attorney General has sent a communication to the House, in which he says: “ I understand that the object of this resolution is not to elicit facts connected with the appointments referred to in it, as, if so, it would no doubt have been addressed to that department, the means of obtaining such facts being there and not in this department. It is therefore desired, as I understand, that I should render a legal opinion upon the subject to which the resolution refers. In that view I must reply that I am not at liberty to furnish the legal opinion contemplated. The authority of the Attorney General to render his official opinion is limited by the law which creates and defines his office, and does not permit him to give advice at the call of either House of Congress or to Congress itself, but only to the President or head of an executive department of the Government. The absence of authority to respond to calls for legal opinions coming from sources other than those prescribed by law was early in the history of the Government suggested to the House of Representatives by the then Attorney General, Mr. Wirt, and no change in this respect has been made by the law creating the Department of Justice. Jfce view thus taken has been inby my predecessors, including Attorney Generals Taney, Crittenden, Bates, Evarts, and Williams. I feel that neither my high respect for the express wish of your honorable body, nor my earnest desire to comply With any request that it might make, would warranty departure, in the present instance, from the law and precedents which have heretofore been established.” ->