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repealed as well as the unrepealed--and put in the way of an Executive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 these laws is by no means admitted. But why
should the provisions of the repealed law, which required specific cause
for suspension and a report to the Senate of "evidence and reasons,"
be now in effect applied to the present Executive, instead of the law,
afterwards passed and unrepealed, which distinctly permits suspensions
by the President "in his discretion" and carefully omits the requirement
that "evidence and reasons for his action in the case" shall be reported
to the Senate.
Pages:
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162