SENATE.]

President's Protest.

[MAY 7, 1834.

it to the simplest of all possible forms, a pure despotism. are employed in prescribing the organization, and enuThe first But a separation of departments, so far as practicable, merating the powers, of the three departments. and the preservation of clear lines of division between article treats of the Legislature, and its first section is: them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of all our "All legislative power, herein granted, shall be vested in constitutions; and, doubtless, the continuance of regulated a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a liberty depends on maintaining these boundaries. Senate and House of Representatives."

In the progress, sir, of the Government of the United The second article treats of the Executive power, and its States, we seem exposed to two classes of dangers or dis- first section declares that "the executive power shall be turbances; one external, the other internal. It may hap-vested in a President of the United States of America." pen that collisions arise between this Government and the The third article treats of the Judicial power, and its Governments of the States. That case belongs to the first section declares that "the judicial power of the first class. A memorable instance of this kind existed United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and last year. It was my conscientious opinion, on that oc-in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to casion, that the authority claimed by an individual State time, ordain and establish." was subversive of the just powers of this Government, It is too plain to be doubted, I think, sir, that these and, indeed, incompatible with its existence. I gave a descriptions of the persons or officers in whom the exechearty co-operation, therefore, to measures which the utive and the judicial powers are to be vested, no more crisis seemed to require. We have now before us what define the extent of the grant of those powers, than the appears, to my judgment, to be an instance of the latter words quoted from the first article describe the extent of kind. A contest has arisen between different branches of the legislative grant to Congress. All these several titles, the same Government, interrupting their harmony, and heads of articles, or introductory clauses, with the generthreatening to disturb their balance. It is of the highest al declarations which they contain, serve to designate the importance, therefore, to examine the question carefully, departments, and to mark the general distribution of and to decide it justly. powers; but in all the departments, in the executive and The separation of the powers of government into three judicial as well as in the legislative, it would be unsafe to departments, though all our constitutions profess to be contend for any specific power under such clauses. founded on it, has, nevertheless, never been perfectly es- If we look into the State constitutions, we shall find tablished in any government of the world, and, perhaps, the line of distinction between the departments still less never can be. The general principle is of inestimable perfectly drawn, although the general principle of the value, and the leading lines of distinction sufficiently plain; distinction is laid down in most of them, and, in some of yet there are powers of so undecided a character, that them, in very positive and emphatic terms. In some of they do not seem necessarily to range themselves under these States, notwithstanding the principle of distribution either head. And most of our constitutions, too, having is adopted and sanctioned, the Legislature appoints the laid down the general principle, immediately create ex-judges; and in others it appoints both the governor and ceptions. There do not exist in the general science of the judges; and in others again, it appoints not only the government, or the received maxims of political law, such judges, but all other officers. precise definitions as enable us always to say of a given The inferences which, I think, follow from these views power whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial. of the subject are two: first, that the denomination of a And this is one reason, doubtless, why the constitution, in department does not fix the limits of the powers conferconferring power on all the departments, proceeds not red on it, nor even their exact nature; and, second, by general definition, but by specific enumeration. And (which, indeed, follows from the first,) that, in our Ameragain, its grants a power in general terms, but yet, in the ican Governments, the chief Executive magistrate does same, or some other article or section, imposes a limita- not necessarily, and by force of his general character of tion or qualification on the grant; and the grant and the supreme Executive, possess the appointing power. He limitation must, of course, be construed together. Thus may have it, or he may not, according to the particular the constitution says that all legislative power, therein provisions applicable to each case, in the respective congranted, shall be vested in Congress, which Congress shall stitutions. consist of a Senate and House of Representatives; and yet, The President appears to have taken a different view in another article, it gives to the President a qualified of this subject. He seems to regard the appointing negative over all acts of Congress. So the constitution power as originally and inherently in the Executive, and declares that the judicial power shall be vested in one Su-as remaining absolute in his hands, except so far as the preme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress may constitution restrains it. This I do not agree to, and establish. It gives, nevertheless, in another provision, shall have occasion hereafter to examine the question judicial power to the Senate; and, in like manner, though further. I have intended, thus far, only to insist on the it declares that the executive power shall be vested in the high and indispensable duty of maintaining the division President, using, in the immediate context, no words of of power, as the constitution has marked that division out; limitation, yet it elsewhere subjects the treaty-making and to oppose claims of authority not founded on express power, and the appointing power, to the concurrence of grants or necessary implication, but sustained merely by the Senate. The irresistible inference, from these con- argument, or inference, from names or denominations siderations is, that the mere denomination of a department given to departments. as one of the three great and commonly acknowledged Mr. President, the resolutions now before us declare, departments of government, does not confer on that de- that the protest asserts powers as belonging to the Prespartment any power at all. Notwithstanding the depart- ident, inconsistent with the authority of the two Houses ments are called the legislative, the executive, and the of Congress, and inconsistent with the constitution; and judicial, we must yet look into the provisions of the con- that the protest itself is a breach of privilege. I believe · stitution itself, in order to learn, first, what powers the all this to be true. constitution regards as legislative, executive, and judicial; The doctrines of the protest are inconsistent with the and, in the next place, what portions or quantities of authority of the two Houses, because, in my judgment, these powers are conferred on the respective departments; they deny the just extent of the law-making power. I because no one will contend that all legislativepower be- take the protest as it was sent to us, without inquiring longs to Congress, all executive power to the President, how far the subsequent message has modified or explained or all judicial power to the courts of the United States. it. It is singular, indeed, that a paper, so long in prep The first three articles of the constitution, as all know, laration, so elaborate in composition, and which is put

MAY 7, 1834.]

President's Protest.

[SENATE.

forth for so high a purpose as the protest avows, should Senate to their constituents, after such interference had not be able to stand an hour's discussion before it became already been made, in the same paper, in the most obevident that it was indispensably necessary to alter or ex- jectionable and offensive form. If it were not for the plain its contents. Explained, or unexplained, however, purpose of telling these Senators that they disobeyed the the paper contains sentiments which justify us, as I think, will of the Legislatures of the States they represent, for in adopting these resolutions. what purpose was it that the protest has pointed out the In the first place, I think the protest a clear breach of four Senators, and paraded against them the sentiments privilege. It is a reproof, or rebuke, of the Senate, in of their Legislatures? There can be no other purpose. language hardly respectful, for the exercise of a power The protest says, indeed, that "these facts belong to the clearly belonging to it as a legislative body. It entirely history of these proceedings!" To the history of what misrepresents the proceedings of the Senate. I find this proceedings? To any proceeding to which the President paragraph in it, among others of a similar tone and char-was party? To any proceeding to which the Senate was acter: "A majority of the Senate, whose interference party? Have they any thing to do with the resolution of with the preliminary question has, for the best of all rea- the 28th of March? But it adds, that these facts are imsons, been studiously excluded, anticipate the action of portant to the just development of the principles and inthe House of Representatives, assume not only the func-terests involved in the proceedings. All this might be tion which belongs exclusively to that body, but convert said of any other facts. It is mere words. To what themselves into accusers, witnesses, counsel, and judges, principles, to what interests, are these facts important? and prejudge the whole case. Thus presenting the ap- They cannot be important but in one point of view; and palling spectacle, in a free state, of judges going through that is, as proof, or evidence, that the Senators have disa labored preparation for an impartial hearing and decis- obeyed instructions, or acted against the known will of ion, by a previous ex parte investigation and sentence their constituents, in disapproving the President's conagainst the supposed offender." duct. They have not the slightest bearing in any other

introduced into this protest for the very purpose, and no other, of showing that the members of the Senate have acted contrary to the will of their constituents. Every man sees and knows this to have been the sole design; and any other pretence is a mockery to our understandings. And this purpose is, in my opinion, an unlawful purpose; it is an unjustifiable intervention between us and our constituents; and is, therefore, a manifest and flagrant breach of privilege.

Now, sir, this paragraph, I am bound to say, is a total way. They do not make the resolution of the Senate misrepresentation of the proceedings of the Senate. A more or less true, nor its right to pass it more or less majority of the Senate have not anticipated the House of clear. Sir, these proceedings of the Legislatures were Representatives; they have not assumed the functions of that body; they have not converted themselves into accusers, witnesses, counsel, or judges. They have made no ex parte investigation; they have given no sentence. This paragraph is an elaborate perversion of the whole design and the whole proceedings of the Senate. A protest, sent to us by the President, against votes which the Senate has an unquestionable right to pass, and containing, too, such a misrepresentation of these votes as this paragraph manifests, is a breach of privilege.

In the next place, the assertions of the protest are inconsistent with the just authority of Congress, because they claim for the President a power, independent of Congress, to possess the custody and control of the public treasures. Let this point be accurately examined; and, in order to avoid mistake, I will read the precise words of the protest:

But there is another breach of privilege. The President interferes between the members of the Senate and their constituents, and charges them with acting contrary to the will of those constituents. He says it is his right and duty to look to the Journals of the Senate, to ascertain who voted for the resolution of the 28th of March, and then to show that individual Senators have, by their votes "The custody of the public property, under such reg on that resolution, disobeyed the instructions, or violated ulations as may be prescribed by legislative authority, the known will of the Legislatures who appointed them. has always been considered an appropriate function of the All this he claims, as his right and his duty. And where Executive department in this and all other Governments. does he find any such right, or any such duty? What In accordance with this principle, every species of propright has he to send a message to either House of Con-erty belonging to the United States, (excepting that gress, telling its members that they disobey the will of which is in the use of the several co-ordinate departments their constituents? Has any English sovereign, since of the Government, as means to aid them in performing Cromwell's time, dared to send such a message to Par- their appropriate functions,) is in charge of officers apliament? Sir, if he can tell us that some of us disobey pointed by the President, whether it be lands, or buildour constituents, he can tell us that all do so; and if we ings, or merchandise, or provisions, or clothing, or arms consent to receive this language from him, there is but and munitions of war. The superintendents and keepone remaining step; and that is, that since we thus dis-ers of the whole are appointed by the President, and reobey the will of our constituents, he should disperse us, movable at his will. and send us home. In my opinion, the first step in this "Public money is but a species of public property. It process is as distinct a breach of privilege as the last. If cannot be raised by taxation or customs, nor brought into Cromwell's examples shall be followed out, it will not be the treasury in any other way except by law; but whenever more clear then than it is now, that the privileges of the or howsoever obtained, its custody always has been, and Senate have been violated. There is yet something, sir, always must be, unless the constitution be changed, intrustwhich surpasses all this; and that is, that after this directed to the Executive department. No officer can be created interference, after pointing out those Senators whom he by Congress, for the purpose of taking charge of it, whose would represent as having disobeyed the known will of appointment would not, by the constitution, at once detheir constituents, he disclaims all design of interfering at volve on the President, and who would not be responsiall! Sir, who could be the writer of a message, which, ble to him for the faithful performance of his duties." in the first place, makes the President assert such mon- And, in another place, it declares that "Congress canstrous pretensions, and, in the next line, affront the un-not, therefore, take out of the hands of the Executive derstanding of the Senate by disavowing all right to do department the custody of the public property or money, that very thing which he is doing? If there be any thing, without an assumption of executive power, and a subsir, in this message, more likely than the rest of it to move version of the first principles of the constitution." These, one from his equanimity, it is this disclaimer of all design sir, are propositions which cannot receive too much atto interfere with the responsibility of members of the tention. They affirm, that the custody of the public

SENATE.]

President's Protest.

[MAY 7, 1834.

money constitutionally and necessarily belongs to the Ex-thus arrives at the conclusion that it must always be in the ecutive; and that, until the constitution is changed, Con-hands of those who are appointed by the President, and gress cannot take it out of his hands, nor make any pro- who are removable at his pleasure. And it is very clear vision for its custody, except by such superintendents and that the protest means to maintain that the tenure of office keepers as are appointed by the President, and remova- cannot be so regulated by law, as that public officers shall ble at his will. If these assertions be correct, we have, not be removable at the pleasure of the President. indeed, a singular constitution for a republican Govern- The President considers the right of removal as a fixed, ment; for we give the Executive the control, the custo-vested, constitutional right, which Congress cannot limit, dy, and the possession of the public treasury, by original control, or qualify, until the constitution shall be altered. constitutional provision; and when Congress appropriates, This, sir, is doctrine which I am not prepared to admit. it appropriates only what is already in the President's hands. I shall not now discuss the question, whether the law may Sir, I hold these propositions to be sound in neither not place the tenure of office beyond the reach of Execubranch. I maintain that the custody of the public money tive pleasure; but I wish merely to draw the attention of does not, necessarily, belong to the Executive, under this the Senate to the fact, that any such power in Congress Government; and I hold that Congress may so dispose of is denied by the principles and by the words of the proit, that it shall be under the superintendence of keepers test. According to that paper, we live under a constinot appointed by the President, nor removable at his tution, by the provisions of which the public treasures will. I think it competent for Congress to declare, as are, necessarily and unavoidably, always under Executive Congress did declare, in the bank charter, that the public control; and as the Executive may remove all officers, deposites should be made in the bank. When in the bank, and appoint others, at least temporarily, without the conthey were not kept by persons appointed by the Presi-currence of the Senate, he may hold those treasures, in dent, or removable at his will. He could not change that the hands of persons appointed by himself alone, in deficustody, nor could it be changed at all, but according to ance of any law which Congress has passed or can pass. provisions made in the law itself. There was, indeed, a It is to be seen, sir, how far such claims of power will reprovision in the law authorizing the Secretary to change ceive the approbation of the country. It is to be seen the custody. But, suppose there had been no such pro- whether a construction will be readily adopted which vision; suppose the contingent power had not been given thus places the public purse out of the guardianship of to the Secretary, would it not have been a lawful enact- the immediate representatives of the people. ment? Might not the law have provided that the public But, sir, there is, in this paper, something even yet moneys should remain in the bank, until Congress itself more strange than these extraordinary claims of power. should otherwise order, leaving no power of removal any There is, sir, a strong disposition, running through the where else? And if such provision had been made, what whole protest, to represent the Executive department of power, or custody, or control, would the President have this Government as the peculiar protector of the public possessed over them? Clearly, none at all. The act liberty, the chief security on which the people are to reof May, 1800, directed custom-house bonds, in places ly against the encroachments of other branches of the where the bank, which was then in existence, was situated, Government. Nothing can be more manifest than this or in which it had branches, to be deposited in the bank or purpose. To this end, the protest spreads out the Presiits branches for collection, without the reservation of any dent's official oath, reciting all its words in a formal quotapower of removal to the Secretary or anybody else. tion; and yet the oath of members of Congress is exactly Now, sir, this was an unconstitutional law, if the protest, equivalent. The President is to swear that he will "prein the part now under consideration, be correct; because serve, protect, and defend the constitution;" and memit placed the public money in a custody beyond the con-bers of Congress are to swear that they will "support trol of the President, and in hands of keepers not ap- the constitution." There are more words in one oath pointed by him, nor removable at his pleasure. One may than the other, but the sense is precisely the same. Why, readily discern, sir, the process of reasoning by which then, this reference to his official oath, and this ostentathe author of the protest brought himself to the conclu- tious quotation of it? Would the writer of the protest sion that Congress could not place the public moneys be- argue that the oath itself is any grant of power; or that, yond the President's control. It is all founded on the because the President is to "preserve, protect, and depower of appointment, and the power of removal. These fend the constitution," he is, therefore, to use what means powers, it is supposed, must give to the President com- he pleases, or any means, for such preservation, protecplete control and authority over those who actually hold the money, and, therefore, must necessarily subject its custody, at all times, to his own individual will. This is the argument.

tion, and defence, except those which the constitution and laws have specifically given him? Such an argument would be preposterous; but if the oath be not cited for this preposterous purpose, with what design is it thus disIt is true, that the appointment of all public officers, played on the face of the protest, unless it be to support with some exceptions, is, by the constitution, given to the the general idea that the maintenance of the constitution President, with the consent of the Senate; and as, in most and the preservation of the public liberties are especially cases, public property must be held by some officer, its confided to the safe discretion, the sure moderation, the keepers will generally be persons so appointed. But this paternal guardianship of Executive power? The oath of is only the common, not a necessary consequence, of the President contains three words, all of equal import; giving the appointing power to the President and Senate. that is, that he will preserve, protect, and defend the Congress may still, if it shall so see fit, place the public constitution. The oath of members of Congress is extreasure in the hand of no officer appointed by the Presi- pressed in shorter phrase; it is, that they will support the dent, or removable by him, but in hands quite beyond his constitution. If there be any difference in the meaning control. Subject to one contingency only, it did this very of the two oaths, I cannot discern it; and yet the protest thing by the charter of the present bank; and it did the solemnly and formally argues thus: "The duty of defendsame thing absolutely, and subject to no contingency, by ing, so far as in him lies, the integrity of the constitution, the law of 1800. The protest, in the first place, seizes would indeed have resulted from the very nature of his on the fact that all officers must be appointed by the Pres- office; but, by thus expressing it in the official oath or ident, or on his nomination; it then assumes the next step, affirmation, which, in this respect, differs from that of that all officers are, and must be, removable at his pleas- every other functionary, the founders of our republic ure; and then, insisting that public money, like other have attested their sense of its importance, and have giv public property, must be kept by some public officer, it en to it a peculiar solemnity and force."

Sir, I deny the proposition, and I dispute the proof. I deny that the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution is, in any peculiar sense, confided to the President; and I deny that the words of his oath furnish any argument to make good that proposition. Be pleased, sir, to remember against whom it is that the President holds it his peculiar duty to defend the integrity of the constitution. It is not against external force; it is not against a foreign foe; no such thing; but is against the representatives of the people and the representatives of the States. It is against these, that the founders of our republic have imposed on him the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution—a duty, he says, of the importance of which they have attested their sense, and to which they have given peculiar solemnity and force, by expressing it in his official oath!

[SENATE.

Through all this history of the contest for liberty, executive power has been regarded as a lion which must be caged. So far from being the object of enlightened popular trust-so far from being considered the natural protector of popular right, it has been dreaded, uniformly, always dreaded, as the great source of its danger. And now, sir, who is he, so ignorant of the history of liberty, at home and abroad; who is he, yet dwelling, in his contemplations, among the principles and dogmas of the middle ages; who is he, from whose bosom all original infusion of American spirit has become so entirely evaporated and exhaled, as that he shall put into the mouth of the President of the United States the doctrine that the defence of liberty naturally results to executive power, and is its peculiar duty? Who is he, that, generous and confiding towards power where it is most dangerous, and Let us pause, sir, and consider this most strange propo- jealous only of those who can restrain it; who is he, that, sition. The President is the chief Executive magistrate. reversing the order of the state, and up-heaving the base, He is commander-in-chief of the army and navy, nomi- would poise the pyramid of the political system upon its nates all persons to office, claims a right to remove all at apex; who is he, that, overlooking with contempt the will, and to control all while yet in office, dispenses all guardianship of the representatives of the people, and, favors, and wields the whole patronage of the Govern- with equal contempt, the higher guardianship of the peoment. And the proposition is, that the duty of defend-ple themselves; who is he, that declares to us, through ing the integrity of the constitution against the repre- the President's lips, that the security for freedom rests in sentatives of the States, and against the representatives of executive authority? Who is he that belies the blood and the people, results to him from the very nature of his of- libels the fame of his own ancestors, by declaring that fice, and that the founders of our republic have given to this they, with solemnity of form, and force of manner, have duty, thus confided to him, peculiar solemnity and force! invoked the executive power to come to the protection of Mr. President, the contest, for ages, has been to res- liberty? Who is he that thus charges them with the incue liberty from the grasp of Executive power. Who-sanity, or the recklessness, of putting the lamb beneath ever has engaged in her sacred cause, from the days of the lion's paw? No, sir. No, sir. Our security is in the downfall of those great aristocracies which had stood our watchfulness of executive power. It was the constibetween the king and the people, to the time of our own in- tution of this department, which was infinitely the most dependence, has struggled for the accomplishment of that difficult part in the great work of creating our present single object. On the long list of the champions of hu- Government. To give to the Executive department such man freedom, there is not one name dimmed by the re- power as should make it useful, and yet not such as should proach of advocating the extension of Executive author-render it dangerous; to make it efficient, independent, ity; on the contrary, the uniform and steady purpose of and strong, and yet to prevent it from sweeping away all such champions has been to limit and restrain it. To every thing by its union of military and civil authority, by this end the spirit of liberty, growing more and more en- the influence of patronage, and office, and favor: this, inlightened and more and more vigorous, from age to age, has been battering, for centuries, against the solid but ments of the feudal system. To this end, all that could be gained from the imprudence, snatched from the weakness, or wrung from the necessities of crowned heads, has been carefully gathered up, secured, and hoarded, as the rich treasures, the very jewels of liberty. To this end, popular and representative right has kept up its warfare against prerogative, with various success; sometimes writing the history of a whole age in blood, sometimes witnessing the martyrdom of Sidneys and Russells, often baffled and repulsed, but still gaining, on the whole, and holding what I do not wish, sir, to impair the power of the President, it gained with a grasp which nothing but the complete as it stands written down in the constitution, and as great extinction of its own being could compel it to relinquish. and good men have hitherto exercised it. In this, as in At length, the great conquest over Executive power in other respects, I am for the constitution as it is. But I the leading western states of Europe has been accom-will not acquiesce in the reversal of all just ideas of govplished. The feudal system, like other stupendous fab-ernment, I will not degrade the character of popular reprics of past ages, is known only by the rubbish which it resentation; I will not blindly confide, where all experihas left behind it. Crowned heads have been compelled to submit to the restraints of law; and the people, with that intelligence and that spirit which make their voice resistless, have been able to say to prerogative, "Thus far Having claimed for the Executive the especial guarshalt thou come, and no farther." I need hardly say, sir, dianship of the constitution, the protest proceeds to prethat into the full enjoyment of all which Europe has sent a summary view of the powers which are supposed reached only through such slow and painful steps, we to be conferred on the Executive by that instrument. sprang at once, by the declaration of independence, and And it is to this part of the message, sir, that I would, by the establishment of free representative Governments; more than to all others, call the particular attention of the Governments, borrowing more or less from the models of Senate. I confess, that it was only upon careful re-peruother free states, but strengthened, secured, improved sal of the paper, that I perceived the extent to which its in their symmetry, and deepened in their foundation, by assertions of power reach. I do not speak, now, of the those great men of our own country whose names will be President's claims of power, as opposed to legislative auas familiar to future times as if they were written on the thority, but of his opinions as to his own authority, duty, arch of the sky. and responsibility, as connected with all other officers

deed, was difficult. They who had the work to do saw the difficulty, and we see it; and if we would maintain our system, we shall act wisely to that end, by preserving every restraint and every guard which the constitution has provided. And when we, and those who come after us, have done all that we can do, and all that they can do, it will be well for us and for them, if some popular Executive, by the power of patronage and party, and the power, too, of that very popularity, shall not hereafter prove an over-match for all other branches of the Government.

ence admonishes me to be jealous; I will not trust executive power, vested in the hands of a single magistrate, to keep the vigils of liberty.

VOL. X.-106

SENATE.]

President's Protest.

[MAY 7, 1834.

under the Government. He is of opinion that the whole According to the protest, the very duties, which every Executive power is vested in him, and that he is respon-officer under the Government performs, are the duties of sible for its entire exercise; that, among the duties im- the President himself. It says that the President has a posed on him, is that of "taking care that the laws be right to employ agents of his own choice, to aid him in faithfully executed;" and that "being thus made respon- the performance of his duties. sible for the entire action of the Executive department, it Mr. President, if these doctrines be true, it is idle for was but reasonable that the power of appointing, over- us any longer to talk about any such thing as a governseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws-a ment of laws. We have no government of laws, not power in its nature executive-should remain in his hands. even the semblance or shadow of it; we have no legal It is, therefore, not only his right, but the constitution responsibility. We have an Executive, consisting of one makes it his duty, to nominate, and by and with the ad-person, wielding all official power, and which is, to every vice and consent of the Senate,' appoint all officers of effectual purpose, completely irresponsible. The Presithe United States whose appointments are not in the con-dent declares that he is "responsible for the entire action stitution otherwise provided for,' with a proviso that the of the Executive department." Responsible? What does appointment of inferior officers may be vested in the he mean by being "responsible?" Does he mean legal President alone, in the courts of justice, or in the heads responsibility? Certainly not. No such thing. Legal of departments." responsibility signifies liability to punishment for miscon The first proposition, then, which the protest asserts, duct or mal-administration. But the protest does not in regard to the President's powers, as executive magis-mean that the President is liable to be impeached and trate, is, that the general duty being imposed on him by punished, if a Secretary of State should commit treason, the constitution of taking care that the laws be faithfully if a collector of the customs should be guilty of bribery, executed, he thereby becomes himself responsible for the or if a Treasurer should embezzle the public money. It conduct of every person employed in the Government; does not mean, and cannot mean, that he should be an"for the entire action," as the paper expresses it, "of swerable for any such crime, or such delinquency. What, the Executive department." This, sir, is very dangerous then, is its notion of that responsibility, which it says the logic. I reject the inference altogether. No such re- President is under for all officers, and which authorizes sponsibility, nor any thing like it, follows from the general him to consider all officers as his own personal agents? provision of the constitution making it his duty to see the Sir, it is merely responsibility to public opinion. It is a laws executed. If it did, we should have, in fact, but liability to be blamed; it is the chance of becoming unone officer in the whole Government. The President popular, the danger of losing a re-election. Nothing else would be every body. And the protest assumes to the is meant in the world. It is the hazard of failing in any President this whole responsibility for every other officer, attempt or enterprise of ambition. This is all the refor the very purpose of making the President every body, ponsibility to which the doctrines of the protest hold the of annihilating every thing like independence, responsi-President subject. bility, or character, in all other public agents. The whole It is precisely the responsibility under which Cromwell responsibility is assumed, in order that it may be more acted, when he dispersed Parliament, telling its members, plausibly argued that all officers of Government are, not not in so many words, indeed, that they disobeyed the agents of the law, but the President's agents, and there- will of their constituents, but telling them that the people fore responsible to him alone. If he be responsible for were sick of them, and that he drove them out "for the the conduct of all officers, and they be responsible to him glory of God, and the good of the nation." It is preonly, then it may be maintained that such officers are but cisely the responsibility upon which Bonaparte broke up his own agents, his substitutes, his deputies. The first the popular assembly of France. I do not mean, sir, thing to be done, therefore, is to assume the responsibility certainly, by these illustrations, to insinuate designs of for all; and this, you will perceive, sir, is done in the ful-violent usurpations against the President; far from it; but lest manner, in the passages which I have read Having I do mean to maintain that such responsibility as that with thus assumed for the President the entire responsibility of the whole Government, the protest advances boldly to its conclusion, and claims, at once, absolute power over all individuals in office, as being merely the President's agents. This is the language: "The whole Executive power being vested in the President, who is responsible for its exercise, it is a necessary consequence that he should have a right to employ agents of his own choice, to aid him in the performance of his duties, and to discharge them when he is no longer willing to be responsible for their acts."

which the protest clothes him, is no legal responsibility, no constitutional responsibility, no republican responsibility; but a mere liability to loss of office, loss of character, and loss of fame, if he shall choose to violate the laws and overturn the liberties of the country. It is such a responsibility as leaves every thing in his discretion, and his pleasure.

Sir, it exceeds human belief, that any man should put sentiments, such as this paper contains, into a public communication from the President to the Senate. They are sentiments which give us all one master. The protest This, sir, completes the work. This handsomely rounds asserts an absolute right to remove all persons from office off the whole executive system of executive authority. at pleasure; and for what reason? Because they are inFirst, the President has the whole responsibility; and competent? Because they are incapable? Because they then, being thus responsible for all, he has, and ought to are remiss, negligent, or inattentive? No, sir, these are have, the whole power. We have heard of political units, not the reasons. But he may discharge them, one and and our American Executive, as here represented, is, in- all, simply because "he is no longer willing to be redeed, a unit. We have a charmingly simple Government! sponsible for their acts!" It insists on an absolute right in Instead of many officers in different departments, each the President to direct and control every act of every having appropriate duties, and each responsible for his officer of the Government, except the judges. It asserts own duties, we are so fortunate as to have to deal with this right of direct control, over and over again. The but one officer. The President carries on the Govern- President may go into the Treasury, among the auditors ment; all the rest are but sub-contractors. Sir, what- and comptrollers, and direct them how to settle every ever name we give him, we have but one Executive offi- man's account; what abatements to make from one, what cer. A Briareus sits in the centre of our system, and additions to another. He may go into the custom-house, with his hundred hands touches every thing, moves every among collectors and appraisers; and may control estithing, controls every thing. I ask, sir, is this republican- mates, reductions, and appraisements. It is true, that ism? is this a government of laws? is this legal responsibility? these officers are sworn to discharge the duties of their