as, nevertheless, freely accepted as
binding and conclusive upon Congress.

The question came before the Supreme Court of the United States in
January, 1839, _ex parte_ Hennen. It was declared by the court on that
occasion that the power of removal from office was a subject much
disputed, and upon which a great diversity of opinion was entertained in
the early history of the Government. This related, however, to the power
of the President to remove officers appointed with the concurrence of
the Senate, and the great question was whether the removal was to be
by the President alone or with the concurrence of the Senate, both
constituting the appointing power. No one denied the power of the
President and Senate jointly to remove where the tenure of the office
was not fixed by the Constitution, which was a full recognition of the
principle that the power of removal was incident to the power of
appointment; but it was very early adopted as a practical construction
of the Constitution that this power was vested in the President alone,
and such would appear to have been the legislative construction of the
Constitution, for in the organization of the three great Departments of
State, War, and Treasury, in the year 1789, provision was made for the
appointment of a subordinate officer by the head of the Department, who
should have charge of the records, books, and papers appertaining to the
office when the head of the Department should be removed from office
by the President of the United States. When the Navy Department was
established, in the year 1798, provision was made for the charge and
custody of the books, records, and documents of the Department in case
of vacancy in the office of Secretary by removal or otherwise. It is not
here said "by removal of the President," as is done with respect to the
heads of the other Departments, yet there can be no doubt that he holds
his office with the same tenure as the other Secretaries and is
removable by the President. The change of phraseology arose, probably,
from its having become the settled and well-understood construction of
the Constitution that the power of removal was vested in the President
alone in such cases, although the appointment of the officer is by the
President and Senate. (13 Peters, p. 139.)

Our most distinguished and accepted commentators upon the Constitution
concur in the construction thus early given by Congress, and thus
sanctioned by the Supreme Court. A