except
as herein otherwise provided."
The President was however authorized to suspend civil officers
during the recess, except Judges, until the next session of
the Senate, and to designate a substitute who should discharge
the duties of the office, himself being subject to removal
by the designation of another.
The President was further required to nominate within thirty
days after the commencement of each session of the Senate
persons to fill all vacancies in office, which existed at
the meeting of the Senate, whether temporarily filled or not,
and in place of all officers suspended. If no appointment
were made, with the advice and consent of the Senate during
such session, the office was to be in abeyance.
It will be seen that this statute required the assent of the
Senate to the exercise of the President's power of removal,
although without its consent he could suspend the officer so
as to deprive him of the emoluments of his office.
So the appointment of a new officer by the advice and consent
of the Senate operated in such case as a removal of the person
them holding office, and a failure of the Senate to confirm
such proposed appointment had the effect to restore the officer
suspended, or temporarily removed.
Under these conditions there grew up a very earnest controversy
between President Cleveland and the Republican majority in
the Senate, led by the Judiciary Committee, of which Mr. Edmunds
was then Chairman. It has been, I suppose from the beginning
of the Government, the practice of the President to furnish
to the Senate all papers and documents in his possession relating
to the fitness of officials nominated to the Senate.
Mr. Cleveland made no objection, if I understood him correctly,
to continuing that practice. But he claimed that the Senate
had nothing to do with the exercise of his power of removal,
and therefore was not entitled to be informed of the evidence
upon which he acted in that. So he refused and sustained
the heads of Departments in refusing the request of the Senate
to send for its information the documents on file relating
to removals.
This position was encountered by the Republican majority,
some of them claiming that the Senate had the same rightful
share in the removals as in appointments, and that no difference
was to be made between the two cases. Others believed, as
I did, that although the power of removal might be exercised
by the President alone on his ow
|