to be unnecessary; besides, it looked as if they were conferring power, which was not the case, for the Constitution had expressly given the power of appointment in the words there used. He also objected to the subsequent part of this paragraph, because "it declared the President alone to have the power of removal." Mr. Madison remarked:

"That, as there was a discretionary power in the Legislature to give the privilege to the President alone of appointing officers, there could be no injury in declaring in the resolution the constitutional mode of appointing the heads of departments; however, if gentlemen were uneasy, he would not object to striking it out."

Mr. Lee thought there was no objection to the words in the resolution.

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said:

"This officer is at the head of a department, and one of those who are to advise the President; the inferior officers mentioned in the Constitution are clerks and other subordinate persons. The words are only a repetition of the words in the Constitution, and are consequently superfluous."

The question was taken on striking out the words alluded to, and carried in the affirmative: then followed a lengthy discussion upon the power of the President to remove from office the heads of departments, which was participated in by Madison, Smith, Lee, Benson, Vincing, Bland, Jackson, Boudinot, White, Thatcher, Sylvester, Goodhue, Gerry, Livermore, Clymer, and others. Mr. Bland said:

"The power given by the Constitution to the Senate, respecting the appointment to office, would be rendered almost nugatory, if the President had the power of removal. If the first nomination of the President should be disapproved by the Sen

ate, and the second agreed to, the President would have nothing to do but wait the adjournment of Congress, and then fill the vacancy with his favorite, who, by thus getting into possession of the office, would have considerable chance of permanency in it. He thought it consistent with the nature of things that the power which appointed should remove; and would not object to a declaration in the resolution, if the words were added that the President shall remove from office, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' He agreed that the removal by impeachment was a supplementary aid in favor of the people; but he was clearly of the opinion that the same power that appointed had, and ought to have, the power of removal."

Mr. Jackson said:

"He agreed with the gentleman in the general principles, that the body who appointed ought to have the power of removal, as the body which enacts laws can repeal them.”

Mr. White:

Thought no office under the Government was to be held during pleasure, except those which are to be constituted by law; but all the heads of departments are to be appointed by the President, and with the consent and advice of the Senate. He conceived that in all cases the party who appointed ought to judge of the removal, except in those cases which, by the Constitution, are excepted, and in those cases impeachment and conviction are the only mode by which they can be removed."

Mr. Sylvester said:

"He inclined to the sentiments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bland), who thought the Senate ought to be joined with the President in the removal, as they were joined by the Constitution in the appointment to office."

Mr. Gerry:

"The Constitution provides for the appointment of the public officers in this manner: The President shall nominate, and by and with the consent and advice of the Senate, shall appoint Embassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the

Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. Now, if there be no other clause respecting the appointment, I shall be glad to see how the heads of departments are to be removed by the President alone. What clause is it that gives this power in express terms? I believe there is no such. If there is a power of removal besides that by impeachment, it must rest somewhere; it must vest in the President, or in the President and the Senate, or in the President, Senate, and House of Representatives. Now there is no clause which expressly vests it in the President. I believe that no gentleman contends that it is in the House, because that would be that mingling of the executive and legislative powers gentlemen deprecate. I presume the gentleman will grant, that if there is such a power, it vests with the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who are the body that appoints. I think we ought to be cautious how we step in between the President and the Senate, to abridge the power of one or increase the other."

Mr. Livermore:

"Considered this a constitutional question, and was of opinion that the same power which appointed to office had the right of removal also, unless it was restrained by an express declaration to the contrary. As the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is empowered to appoint Embassadors, certainly they have a right to remove them and appoint others. * * He took it, therefore, in the present case, that the President and the Senate would have the power to remove the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The only question, therefore, which appears to be before the Committee, is, whether we shall give this power to the President alone?"

*

Mr. Bland:

"Their inquiries were then reduced to this point: Does it reside, agreeably to the Constitution, in the President, or in the President and the Senate? The Constitution declares, that the President and the Senate shall appoint; and it naturally follows that the power which appoints shall remove also. What would be the consequence of the removal by the President alone?

He had already mentioned and need not repeat. A new President might, by turning out of the great offices, bring about a change of the ministry and throw the affairs of the Union into disorder; would not this in fact make the President a monarch, and give him absolute power over all the great departments of the Government? It signifies nothing, that the Senate has a check over the appointments, because he can remove and tire out the good disposition of the Senate."

The arguments in favor of the power of removal being in the President alone were urged with great earnestness, and a majority of the House seemed to favor that view, for on the question being put on the resolution, that "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" be added, it was lost-more upon the ground, however, that as it was left to the Congress to place the appointing power where it saw fit; that it might also regulate the manner of removal, if any should be deemed necessary, in addition to those methods prescribed by the Constitution. The "Tenure of Civil Office Act" puts to rest this agitating question.

At the time alluded to above (the meeting of the first Congress), twelve amendments were proposed to the Constitution, ten of which were soon adopted; and upon these amendments have depended much of our greatness and liberty as a nation, as also upon the subsequent amendments; but, as these amendments, together with the entire Constitution, will be made the subject of comment in a subsequent chapter, I refer the reader to it, as also to the Constitution itself, in the Appendix to this book.

CHAPTER VII.

SLAVERY.-ITS ORIGIN.-LAWS CONCERNING SLAVERY.-ABOLITION OF.-SLAVERY AMONGST THE ANCIENTS.-ADDRESS OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY ASSOCIATION.-DIVINITY OF SLAVERY.

THE history of human Slavery dates back to the earliest knowledge of the human race, and a species of this iniquity seems to have existed in mild forms, brought about by distinction of physical power, the possession of some species of wealth, or by the voluntary act of men selling themselves, and even their wives and children, for the liquidation of some debt, perhaps contracted on the throw of a dice in the lottery; but the selling by force, and against the will of the victims, had its origin by the captors selling the conquered.

Nimrod seems to have been the first dealer in slaves after the deluge, for on his invasion of the territories of Ashur, the son of Shem, in the territory of Shinar, having seized upon Babylon, he compelled the captives to be employed in building and repairing the Capitol. Abraham, who was born about seventy years after the death of Nimrod, had three hundred and eighteen slaves, born in his own house.

The practice of buying and selling slaves was upheld by the Jewish laws. They were to be bought only of the heathen, and if any of the Jewish people sold themselves into Slavery, they were to be liberated at the year of Jubilee; and their Great Lawgiver had said: "He that stealeth a man and selleth him shall surely