fter a full analysis of the
Congressional debate to which I have referred, Mr. Justice Story comes
to this conclusion:

After a most animated discussion, the vote finally taken in the House
of Representatives was affirmative of the power of removal in the
President, without any cooperation of the Senate, by the vote of 34
members against 20. In the Senate the clause in the bill affirming the
power was carried by the casting vote of the Vice-President. That the
final decision of this question so made was greatly influenced by the
exalted character of the President then in office was asserted at the
time and has always been believed; yet the doctrine was opposed as well
as supported by the highest talents and patriotism of the country. The
public have acquiesced in this decision, and it constitutes, perhaps,
the most extraordinary case in the history of the Government of a power
conferred by implication on the Executive by the assent of a bare
majority of Congress which has not been questioned on many other
occasions.

The commentator adds:

Nor is this general acquiescence and silence without a satisfactory
explanation.

Chancellor Kent's remarks on the subject are as follows:

On the first organization of the Government it was made a question
whether the power of removal in case of officers appointed to hold
at pleasure resided nowhere but in the body which appointed, and, of
course, whether the consent of the Senate was not requisite to remove.
This was the construction given to the Constitution, while it was
pending for ratification before the State conventions, by the author of
the Federalist. But the construction which was given to the Constitution
by Congress, after great consideration and discussion, was different.
The words of the act [establishing the Treasury Department] are: "And
whenever the same shall be removed from office by the President of
the United States, or in any other case of vacancy in the office, the
assistant shall act." This amounted to a legislative construction of the
Constitution, and it has ever since been acquiesced in and acted upon
as a decisive authority in the case. It applies equally to every other
officer of the Government appointed by the President, whose term of
duration is not specially declared. It is supported by the weighty
reason that the subordinate officers in the executive department ought
to hold