contemplate this power in the hands of an ambitious
man, who might apply it to dangerous purposes; who might from caprice
remove the most worthy men from office.

[Illustration: View of the Old City or Federal Hall, New York, in 1789

_On the balcony of this building, the site of which is now occupied by
the United States Sub-Treasury, at the corner of Broad and Wall
Streets, George Washington took the oath of office as First President
of the United States, April 30, 1789. In the near distance, at the
intersection of Wall and Broadway, may be seen the original Trinity
Church structure which was completed in 1697. It was replaced by the
present edifice in 1846. President Washington, who was an
Episcopalian, did not attend Trinity, but maintained a pew in St.
Paul's Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Street, which remains as it was when
he worshipped there._]

By the friends of the original bill, the amendment was opposed with
arguments of great force drawn from the constitution and from general
convenience. On several parts of the constitution, and especially on
that which vests the executive power in the President, they relied
confidently to support the position, that, in conformity with that
instrument, the power in question could reside only with the chief
magistrate: no power, it was said, could be more completely executive
in its nature than that of removal from office.

But if it was a case on which the constitution was silent, the
clearest principles of political expediency required that neither
branch of the legislature should participate in it.

The danger that a President could ever be found who would remove good
men from office, was treated as imaginary. It was not by the splendour
attached to the character of the present chief magistrate alone that
this opinion was to be defended. It was founded on the structure of
the office. The man in whose favour a majority of the people of this
continent would unite, had probability at least in favour of his
principles; in addition to which, the public odium that would
inevitably attach to such conduct, would be an effectual security
against it.

After an ardent discussion which consumed several days, the committee
divided: and the amendment was negatived by a majority of thirty-four
to twenty. The opinion thus expressed by the house of representatives
did not explicitly convey their sense of the constitution. Indeed the
express grant of the power to the President, rathe