he permanent
exposition of the Constitution; and on a permanent exposition
of the Constitution will depend the genius and character of
the whole Government."
One party claimed that the power of removal was a necessary
incident to the power of appointment, and vested in the President
by virtue of his power to appoint. It was claimed also on
the same side that the President's duty to see the laws faithfully
executed could not be discharged if subordinates could be
kept in office against his will. In most cases the President
never executes the laws himself, but only has to see them
executed faithfully.
This view prevailed, as we have seen, in Washington's Administration.
It continued to be acted upon till the time of President Johnson.
In General Jackson's time its soundness was challenged by
Webster, Calhoun and Clay. But there was no attempt to resist
it in practice. Mr. Webster in 1835 earnestly dissented
from the original decision, while he admitted that he considered
it "a settled point; settled by construction, settled by precedent,
settled by the practice of the Government, and settled by
statute." It remained so settled, until, in the strife which
followed the rebellion, a two-thirds majority in Congress
was induced by apprehension of a grave public danger to attempt
to wrest this portion of the executive power from the hands
of Andrew Johnson. The statute of March 2, 1867, as construed
by nearly two-thirds of the Senate, enacted that officers
appointed by the predecessor of President Johnson, who, by
the law in force when they were appointed, and by the express
terms of their commission, were removable at the pleasure
of the President, should remain in office until the Senate
should consent to the appointment of their successors, or
approve their removal.
In 1867 Congress undertook to determine by statute the construction
of the Constitution as to this disputed question. Some persons
claimed that that power existed in the provision--"To make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department officer thereof."
The Constitutionality and effect of this statute were debated
on the trial of President Johnson. But it served its purpose
during the last two years of Johnson's Administration. Five
days after Grant's inauguration, the House of Represe
|