Western Sun & General Advertiser, Volume 25, Number 18, Vincennes, Knox County, 24 May 1834 — Page 2

ty.11 In other words, is called "an act of persecution for opinion's sake." 'What practical meaning has this position ? Was ever an officer removed where thcciuso of removal did not exhitin a difference of opinion between the power of removal arid the spent to he removed f where the agent, or officer did not refuse to do an act which the removing power thought he outfit to do, or insist upon doiug an net which the removing power thought lie ouht rd tt do? I !n:?wcr, ihcreisbut one possible case in which a removal from i.ffice can take plicts without a cause, in one shape or an another, growing out of these differences of opinion between the removing and the .-removed officer; and, as that case must be utter incompetency, I congratulate the advocates of the resolution upon the' fact lhat they are notconipelled. in -reference to the late Secretary , whom they so warmly eulogize, an J towards whom their sympathies are s- kindly extended, to resort to his cause alone for his removal; but arc able tv show thai a difference of opin ion between him and the President fur-ni:-hes a prolable ground for his los3 of office. Removal - "for opinion's sake,"' then, is nothing more, or less, than a removal growing out of a difference of opinion between the removing power and the officer to be removed. The power to remove is admitted; but the power to n move on account of a difference of opinion between ihe removing officer &. t he officer to Le removed, is denied What is 'ho practical effect of (his con struction f 'he power of removal conferred I the Constitution upon the President? It is that he may remove thot-e who agree with him in opinion ; those who are willing and desirous to ait! his measurrs and give pfi-riency to his administration ; those vv Mi whom he can live and act in harmony; his political and personal friends; but tlut he cannot remove those who differ with hmi in opinion; those who

will not carrv into effect the measures of his administration; those who are personally and politically hostile to him. I shall presently examine this power and see if its proper construction leads to such absurdities. Second. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cia . ) lay s down the distinct proposition, that "the Secretary of the Treasury is not an Executive officer, nor is the Treasury Department an Executive Depayment." A sufficient answer, in legal argument, to this proposition is, that tht power of removal, conferred upon he President by the constitution, extends to the removal of thr; Secretary of the Treasury, whether he be or be not an Executive officer, and " bother his Department be or be not an Executive Department, and this the advocates of the resolution admit. The whole proposition, therefore, in its application here. oes merely to question the w - 7 r sufficiency of the cause of the removal, and not to deny the constitutional or legal nower. It stands, then, with the proposal u just examined, in this respect, and -will he further replied to when the power of removal shall be examined. I cannot, however, be understood as admitting the facts assumed by this position, "that the Secretary of the Treasury is riot an Executive ofiker," and that "his Deportment is not an Executive Depart- . xncnt." will not, however, enter, in detail, into the proofs which hnw- that the position in every sense is mistaken in fact, as others have already fullv dxne this, but will content my self w ith taking a very brief view of the proposition as compared with the provisions of the constitution alone, wholly without reference to the laws establishing and regulating ths Department. The Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay) re id from the Presidents communication to his Cabinet, as follows: "Upon him the President h is been devolved by the Constitution and the suffrages of the American People, the duty of superintending the operations of the Executive Departments of the Government, and seeing that the laws are faithfully executed." When he says "This I denyP "The Constitution does not devolve these duties upon the President. "The laws organizing the executive departments, except the Treasury departin. ot, put these departments under the direeti ni of the President; but it is the law, not the constitution, from which he derive his authoriu We will see what the constitution does coaler upon the President in relation to the executive departments. It reads as follows: "Tho tzecutire potccr shall be vested in a President of ilie Uuued States of Aoieric.i. Now, 4s I cannot viol J to the force of

the eminent of the learned Senator, inupm him constant vigilance over all

anoih.-r part of his argument, that the pro-visi-..; in the BuU charier uYu die business of the institution should be conducted ii a hrd .,f directors" was net saying "that all business should k'so con ducted, i mnsi le permitted to believe th.-.t the Coi.suiuti.!, when it says, - "The ex ccutive nower luili he vested io it Proi-' r ,t I hit I ; MMltil t-.t. . - " t ... ... ... . , it i . ' fctntes of America.'' , mean-! ihi cill the , j executive nuwer. not ' Otherwise epitM granieu, shall be so vtsled, and not lht ap.vrt of it oul should .1 . 7 pas oy tint ;rant, and ih.it the . reiJue sh 'Ul.i ! eouiVrretl by Congress, to winch bwvly , us a Corressjthat instrument give-j to executive power. Ttw ,,rttv urant ot executive power to i bef'Mivl in the c efituti-Mi, oilier ihuu ti-at abuvo quote J, is the grant to the Sju-,

ate in relation to appointments to office, and as this last grant is defined and specific, it certainly cannot extend to an ex executive supervision over the executive departments. If, then, the Treasury department be an exeevtice department, the constitution has

devolved upon the President the duty of superintending its operations, as it has "vested" in him all the ."executive power" of the government, except the specific grant to the Senate, relating exclusively to appointments. Is the Treasury Department an Executive Department? The duties of it arc Executive. The head of it is appointed as the Executive officers are; is made one of the constitutional advisers of the Ex ecutive; a member of his confidential cabinet; and is bound to give his opinion, when called for, in any matter relating to the Executive Government the characteristics of the Department, therefore, are purely Executive. But, if not Executive, to which of the other great Departments does it belong? The Constitution has created another, called the Legislative Department. The following is the provision: "All Legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congiess of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Surely, the Treasury Department can find no place under this grant. Its duties are in no respect Legislative. The Secretary does not receive his appointment from the People, the States or the Legislature, and he is removable at the pleasure of the President, but not cthcrw ise , except upon an impeachment by the House of Representatives, and a judgment of condemnation by the Senate. The Legislature cannot remove him. The Constitution has created a third great Department of the Government called the Judicial Department. The following is the provision: "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." The Treasury Department surely is, in no judicial sense, a court, and cannot, therefore, be a Judicial Department. From the Constitution itself, then, it appears that the Treasury Department is an Executive Department, and cannot belong to either of the other great Departments into which that instrument has divided all the powers of the government of the United States. That Congress has not the power, by the Constitution, to establish a similar Department, and divest it of the Executive character given to all these departments by the constitutional disposition of the governmental powers. That the constitution has vested in the President of the United States "the Exec utive power," and by virtue of that grant of power, has devolved upon him "the duty of superintending the operations of the Executive Departmentsof the Government." I am discharged, therefore, from all necessity of an examination of the laws relative to this Department, as they surely w ill be so construed as to make them con form to the constitution, unless provisions shall be found wholly irreconcilable to it, and no such provisions have been pointed out. What, then, is this superv isory power of the President over the Executive Departments'? The constitution answers in the following language: "He the President shall take care that the law she faithfully executed." In what manner is he to do this? The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay,) contends that this clause of tho constitution only means "that if resistance to the laws he made, the President shall see that such resistance be overcome." The Senator considers the power as intimately connected with the power to call out the militia to enforce the laws, and as going no farther than to oppose and overcome resistance off red against the execution of a law. This would confound this most important duty f the President with his powers and duties arising under the various laws which have been passed "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" powers and duties strictly military, and derived by the President, not from the constitution, but trom laws of Congress passed in pursuance of the power given to lhat body by the provision of the constitution above recited. With proper submission to the views of the honorable Senator, I think it most clear that the power in question is wholly ot a civil character, and that the duty mi posed pertains exclusively to the Execu-: tive powers of the President. It enjoins the civ il atfiirs of the irovernment. "He shall u tale care that the law s be faithfully executed." It may be inquired, suppose he meets with a refusal on the part of the ofncer to uo nis unties anu execute tne laws, ' . .111. I . 1 ;how is he to enforce obedience I an-! svver, not by calling out the militia upon ihs officer, but bv promptly removing him . . " . F trom bis office, wiiere that power is in his , ( b:i.. )- and vv here it is not. by lavinnr the 1 . , m TS i facts before the House ot Representatives. to tho end that an impeachment may rmove him. It is unquestionaoly fur this purpose that ihe wisdom of the Conveu-' tiou vested "ihe Executive power" in the 1 - i resilient and this apparent necessity whuh induced this decision, by the first ; Cou(ie?s under the constitution, that the I power cf removal from oflice was a part of.

the Executive power, and was in the hands of the Executive. The Senator from New Jersey, (Mr. Southard,) was understood to contend that the cause of the removal operating upon the mind of the President to induce the

act, was material to the constitutionality i or unconstitutionality, legality or illegal ity of the act of removal. Indeed, I am unable to discover the force of this argument, as made by the Senator, and as applicable to the rtftdution, unless he intended to give it this direction. The resolution charges that the President has "assumed the exercise of a power" "not granted to him by the constitution and the laws;" and the Senator expressly admitted the power, in some cases, to remove, and denied it in the case recited in the resolution, upon the ground that the cause ; of the removal was insufficient to justify the act. This brings me to an examination of this power of removal. Its existence in the President has not only been before shown, but is admitted, to some extent, byall the advocates of the resolution. What, then, is the extent of this powrr' The power itself was decided, by the first Congress convened under the constitution, to exist in, and to be derived from, that instrument, as a necessary part of "the Executive power" vested in the President. As such it has been exercised bv every Executive under the constitution. This instrument imposes no limitation whatever upon tho power, other than the liability to impeachment for any abuse of that, as well as of any other power con-1 ferred upon the Executive, which shall! amount to a high crimo or misdemeanor. The cause of the act of removal, therefore, as the motive which, in the mind of the Executive, induces it, is not a constitutional limit upon the exercise of the power, but a mere test of the liability incur red in its exercise in any given case. It follows, then, that if the President, so far as the constitution is concerned, has power to remove the officer for good cause, a remov al of him for an insufficient cause, or from a bad motive, does not make the act unconstitutional ; the cause and the motive having relation only to the liabili ty of the Executive to an impeachment, 6c not to the validity of the act of removal. It remains to inquire whether any law of Congress has restricted this power, or connected its exercise with the cause or motive which leads to it. The very remark s-hows what the answer must be, as the power, being derived solely from the constitution, and being unlimited by that instrument, any law which should impose limits would be unconstitutional. But without resting upon this answer, my research has not enabled me to find any such law; the advocates of the resolution have referred to no such law ; and I believe that I urn safe in say iug lhat no law has ever been passed, assuming to impose restrictions or limitations upon the Executive, power of removal from office of ihe Secretary of the Treasury. Any removal of that officer by the President, therefere, whether made in consequence of a diliereucc of opinion between the officers, or from whatever cause whether ho be denominated an executive officer or be not canuot be either unconstitutional or illegal. As to this first resolution, then, I now come to the following conclusive and simple propositions: The resolution charges the President with having "assumed the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States not granted to him by the constitu lion and the laws, and dangerous to the liberties of the People." The charge is based upon the assumed facts, that the late Secretary was removed from office, "because he would not, contrary to his sense of his own duty, remove the money of the United States, in deposite with the Bank of tho United States and its Branches, in conformity with the President's opinion;" and that his successor, the present Secretary, was appointed "to effect such removal, which has been done." The conclusions are That the President has, by the constitution, power of removal of a Secretary of the Treasury wholly w ithout limitation, he being liable to an impeachment for a criminal exercise of the power. That he has , by the constitution, the unj limited power to appoint, "during the re cess of the Senate, a Secretary of the Treasury , whenever that office shall be vacant, he being also liable to impeachment for a criminal exercise of this power. That neither the removal from office of a Secretary of the Treasury, nor tho appointment of a successor to fill ihe vacancy, is an assumption of "the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the U. States;" or if it is That it is "the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States" vested iu the President by the constitution, as necessarily growing out of his unrestrain ed puwerof removal, and his equally un1 .. Ml resiraineu power "to nit any vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate." Here 1 leave this first resolution. rnpat- . . . . --r . in tn.it any action ot the Senate uoon it. - - m 17 other than in its indicia! cauaeitv. will be a flagrant violation ot tho constitution; J 1 1 that considered legislatively , it is wholly irrelevant to the sut.ject before the Senate;! that it is entirely erroneous in iu assump-j tions of fact and conclusions of law; and that an acts of the President to which it alludes, wholly fail to justify the harsh terms which have bceu applied to them by the advocates of the resulutioa.

But 78 are still called upon to vote npon this resolution; and who, Mr. President, is it upon whom the sentence of this Senate

is thus to be passed without a trial? The , nltlPPr. BIT U tinnn nlhnr th-in Ihn I Slot ! officer fir, U none other than the Chief! recimve oincer ni we l.overnmcnt; me President of the United States; he whom the People elvcvaied to that high station. by their tree suffrages, against the popularity and power of a competitor holding the office, and wielding its patronage; a patronage now represented to be so immense, and irresistible and dangerous, and wielding it too with the aid of skilful and experienced advisers. It is no other than that President, who, after four years of official trial before the People, was re-elected against another competitor, selected from among the distinguished of his countrymen f r his superior hold upon the pop ,ular feeling of the country, and re-elected too by a vote more decisive than any which had ever before marked the result of a long and severe political contest. Such, Mr. President, is the officer, I had like to have said, upon his trial. No, sir, it is not so; who is not to be allowed a trial, but who is about to receive the condemnatory sen tence of the Senate, unheard. Who, sir, u the man, the citizen of our republic, upon whom we are about to pronoun e our high censures? I it Andievv J ackson ? Is is that Andrew Jackson vv ho in his boyhood, was found in the blodstained fields of the revolution? Who came o it from that simple the last living member of his family ? Who, when the sound to arms ajjaia called our citizen-, around the flag of our country, posted him self upon the defenceless frontiers of the South and West, and bared his own bosom to the tomahawks and scalping knives, sharpened for the blood of unprotected women and children? Who turned back from the city of the west the confident ad vance ot a ruthless, and, until then, unsuldued enemy, and closed that second war against American liberty in a blaze of glory, which time will not extinguish? Who when peace was restored to his Leloved counry, turned his spear into a pruning hook, and retired to his Hermitage until the spuntaneous voice of his fellowcitizens called him forth to receive their highest honors, and to become the guardian of their most sacred trusi? Is this the the man who is to be condemned without a trial? Who is not entitled to the privilege allowed him by the constitution of his country ? Sir, this surely should not be so. For the very act which saved a city from piliageaud destruction, and the soli of his country f rom the tread of an invading enemy, this individual was accused of a violation cf tho constitution and laws of his country. For tho very act which entitled bini to the poud appellation "of of the greatest Captain of tho age," he was convicted and condemned as a criminal. Bat Mr. President, he was not then denied a trial. Then ho was permitted to face his accusers, to hear the charges preferred against him, to If r his defeuce, and to be present at his sentence. In gratitude tor these privileges of a freeman, he stay cd back ui.li his own arm tiie advancing wave of popular indignation, while he bow ed fin whitened locks to the sentence of the law, and paid the penalty imposed upon him for having saved and honored his country. m Grant to him, I beseech you, Mr. President, I besech the Senate, gram to that old man the privilege of u trial now. Condemn him not unheard and without the pretence of constitutional accusation. His rivalships a re ended. He asks no more of worldly honor. 4iIIe has done the State some service." Age has crept upon him now, and he approaches the grav e. Let him enjoy, during the short remainder of his stay upon earth, the rights secured to him by that constitution be has so often and so gallantly defeuded, and if iudecd he be criminal, let his conviction precede his sentence JS'EiV GOODS. 2 & V. HAYES HAVE just returned from the East with an entire new stock of fashionable SPRING AND SUMMER GOODS, Comprising almost every article general ly called for, or kept in retail stores,alI of which have been carefully selected from the importers and manufacturers, and which will be sold for CASH at the Louisville retail prices, and to which we invite the attention of all who are desirous of getting bargains. We have in a great measure determined to relinquish the Crediting business. By this arrangement we will be enabled to offer superior inducements to Cash purchasers. Vincennes, May 15, 1S31. 17-Gt sntw GOODS. ROSS K WING, HAVE iust received a handsome supply of SPRING & SUMMER annus. 7 Which added to their frrner stock, makes the assortment general and complete. They will sell low for Cash, or for such articles of produce as are usually received in stores. Vincennes, May 10, 1S31. 16

Administrator's Notice.

e$tate of D j (btc of . . - . . . I via m.9 4 iAtt r f nl Ddvic5:9 C0lint ,nd At6 lccn Urnntrd to me bv the !Urlc of tUn IWIo is Probate court, in vacation. Said estate solvent. . i . DAVID M'DOXALD, AdnCr. May 10, 1831. lG-3t TO THE3 FUB22C. THE subscribers tender their sincere thanks to their friends and customers for the liberal patronage heretofore re ceived, and solicit a continuation. We do believe it will be to the interest cf those wishing to purchase to call and examiao our ' NEW GOODS, JVOIV OPEMXG, which has been selected with great care in the eastern cities, which added to our former stock will make our assortment complete, for the present and approaching seasons, all of which are ofTered as low if not lower than any previous stock, for cash or most kinds of country produce ia exchange. BURTCII&IIEBERD. Vincennes, la.M iv stfi.--15-3ni NEW GOODS. SMITH CARSON. n ESPECTFULLY inform their friends 1, and the public that they have jost received from the east, their SPRING Cl SUiaiVlSR ASSORTMEXT OF 9 which will be found very select and complete, comprising mostly every articlo generally called for, and it i only necessary o siy that THEY HAVE to be sold, and WILL BE sjld, unusually low for CASH. Vincennes, 3.1 May, 1 S3 1 . 1 5-t f ' TpHE sunscribcrs inform their friends li and the public that they have just received from PMladclpfua', Baltinurc and Pittihurh, A NEW AND GENERAL ASSORTMENT OP GOODS, Suitable for the present and approaching seasons consisting of FOREIGN AM) DOMESTIC DRY GOODS, Hardware, Saddlery, and CUTLERY, CHINA, GLASS, AND LEGHORN & ZTRAVJ SILK, FUR, PALM, Sc WOOL Eoffs Tonic and Anti-Dyspeptic Pill, A large and general assortment of Ladies Gentlemen's, and Children's BOOTS & SHOES. This s'ock of Goods lias been carefullv selected for this market, and will be soli unusually low for Cash, or approved Barter. S. fc. W. J. WISE. Vincennes, April .", 1S3I 1 l:f SALT. (t) BbJs. first quality QJ9 Kenhawa, just re ceived, and for sale bv SMITH & CARSONT. Vincennes, 3d May, 1S3I. 15-tf 30 BBLS. of superior qua? lily for sale by S. &, W. J. WISE. May 3, 1931 15-tf JM0TZC3! ALL those indebted to the late firm of Tomlhison Ross are requested to call and settle their notes and accounts without delay, at the office of the Wabash Insurance Company, where they have) been left for collection. A. LeROY, Agent, Vincennes, Aprils, 1831. 11-tf TIIE STEAM BOAT Capt. Ro. Tablhto, WILL ply during tho season as a nati and Lafayette, touching at the intermediate ports. The SYLPH very light draught, and to enable her to proceed at the low stages of water, a small keel boat will bo kept ready at the mouth of the WabaKh. Her cabins have been newly fitted up, and tha boat being in excellent order, offer a superior conveyance for both guxU and pas sengers. W. I). JONES, Asent. Cincinnati. J. C. BUCKLES,' Lwuisvi!J. Pebruaxy 8, le31. 3-tf