One of the most important acts performed at the departments is, to settle those very large accounts which individuals have with the government; accounts amounting to millions of dollars; to settle them, an auditor and a comptroller have been appointed by law, whose official acts may affect, to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the property of individual contractors. If the pretensions of the president are well founded, his power goes further than he has exerted it. He may go into the office of the auditor, or the office of the comptroller, and may say to him, sir, Mr. A. B. has an account under settlement in this office, one item of which, objected to by you, I consider to be in accordance with the constitution; pass that account and send it to the auditor; and he may then go to the auditor and hold similar language. If the clause of the constitution is to be expounded, as is contended for, it amounts to a complete absorption of all the powers of government in the person of the executive. Sir, when a doctrine like this shall be admitted as orthodox, when it shall be acquiesced in by the people of this country, our government will have become a simple machine enough. The will of the president will be the whole of it. There will be but one bed, and that will be the bed of Procrustes; but one will, the will of the president. All the departments, and all subordinate functionaries of government, great or small, must submit to that will; and if they do not, then the president will have failed to ‘see that the laws are faithfully executed.’
Sir, such an extravagant and enormous pretension as this must be set alongside of its exploded compeer, the pretension that congress has the power of passing any and all laws which it may suppose conducive to ‘the general welfare.’
Let me, in a few words, present to the senate what are my own views as to the structure of this government. I hold that no powers can legitimately be exercised under it but such as are expressly delegated, and those which are necessary to carry these into effect. Sir, the executive power, as existing in this government, is not to be traced to the notions of Montesquieu, or of any other writer of that class, in the abstract nature of the executive power. Neither is the legislative nor the judicial power to be decided by any such reformer. These several powers with us, whatever they may be elsewhere, are just what the constitution has made them, and nothing more. And as to the general clauses in which reference is made to either, they are to be controlled and interpreted by those where these several powers are specially delegated, otherwise the executive will become a great vortex thatmust end in swallowing up all the rest. Nor will the judicial power be any longer restrained by the restraining clauses in the constitution, which relate to its exercise. What then, it will be asked, does this clause, that the president shall see that the laws are faithfully executed, mean? Sir, it means nothing more nor less than this, that if resistance is made to the laws, he shall take care that resistance shall cease. Congress, by the first article of the eighth section of the constitution, is required to provide for calling out the militia to execute the laws, in case of resistance. Sir, it might as well be contended under that clause, that congress have the power of determining what are, and what are not, the laws of the land. Congress has the power of calling out the military; well, sir, what is the president, by the constitution? He is commander of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called out into actual service. When, then, we are here told that he is clothed with the whole physical power of the nation, and when we are afterwards told, that he must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, is it possible that any man can be so lost to the love of liberty, as not to admit that this goes no further than to remove any resistance which may be made to the execution of the laws? We have established a system in which power has been carefully divided among different departments of the government. And we have been told a thousand times, that this division is indispensable as a safeguard to civil liberty. We have designated the departments, and have established in each, officers to examine the power belonging to each. The president, it is true, presides over the whole; his eye surveys the whole extent of the system in all its movements. But has he power to enter into the courts, for example, and tell them what is to be done? Or may he come here, and tell us the same? Or when we have made a law, can he withhold the power necessary to its practical effect? He moves, it is true, in a high, a glorious sphere. It is his to watch over the whole with a paternal eye; and, when any one wheel of the vast machine is for a time interrupted by the occurrence of invasion or rebellion, it is his care to propel its movements, and to furnish it with the requisite means of performing its appropriate duty in its own place.
That this is the true interpretation of the constitutional clause to which I have alluded, is inferred from the total silence of all contemporaneous expositions of that instrument on the subject. I have myself, (and when it was not in my power personally, have caused others to aid me,) made researches into the numbers of the Federalist, the debates in the Virginia convention, and in the conventions of other states, as well as all other sources of information to which I could obtain access, and I have not, in a solitary instance, found the slightest color for the claims set up in these most extraordinary times for the president, that he has authority to affordor withhold at pleasure the means of enforcing the laws, and to superintend and control an officer charged with a specific duty, made by the law exclusively his. But, sir, I have found some authorities which strongly militate against any such claim. If the doctrine be indeed true, then it is most evident that there is no longer any other control over our affairs, than that exerted by the president. If it be true, that when a duty is by law specifically assigned to a particular officer, the president may go into his office and control him in the manner of performing it, then is it most manifest that all barriers for the safety of the treasury are gone. Sir, it is that union of the purse and the sword, in the hand of one man, which constitutes the best definition of tyranny which our language can give.
The charter of the bank of the United States requires that the public deposits be made in its vaults. It also gives the secretary of the treasury power to remove them—and why? The secretary is at the head of the finances of the government. Weekly reports are made by the bank to him. He is to report to congress annually; and to either house whenever he should be called upon. He is the sentinel of congress—the agent of congress—the representative of congress. Congress has prescribed and has defined his duties. He is required to report to them, not to the president. He is put there by us, as our representative; he is required to remove the deposits when they shall be in danger, and we not in session; but when he does this, he is required to report to congress the fact, with his reasons for it. Now, sir, if, when an officer of government is thus specifically assigned his duty, if he is to report his official acts on his responsibility to congress; if, in a case where no power whatever is given to the president, the president may go and say to that officer, ‘go and do as I bid you, or you shall be removed from office;’ let me ask, whether the danger apprehended by that eloquent man has not already been realized?
But, sir, let me suppose that I am mistaken in my construction of the constitution; and let me suppose that the president has, as is contended, power to see every particular law carried into effect; what, then, was it his duty to do in the present case under the clause thus interpreted? The law authorized the secretary of the treasury to remove the deposits on his responsibility to congress. Now, if the president has power to see this, like other laws, faithfully executed, then, surely, the law exacted of him that he should see that the secretary was allowed to exercise his free, unbiased, uncontrolled judgment in removing or not removing them. That was the execution of the law. Congress had not said that the secretary of war, or the secretary of state, might remove the public deposits from the treasury.
The president has no right to go to the secretary of war and askhim what the secretary of the treasury ought to do. He might as well have consulted the secretary of the treasury about a contemplated movement of the army, as to ask the secretary of war about the disposition of the public moneys. It was not to the president, and all his secretaries combined, that the power was given to alter the disposition of the deposits in the bank. It was to the secretary alone, exclusive of the president, and all the other officers of government. And according to gentlemen’s own showing, by their construction of the clause, the secretary ought to have been left to his own unbiased determination, uncontrolled by the president or any body else.
I would thank the secretary of the senate to get me the sedition law. It is not very certain how soon we may be called to act upon it.
Now, sir, let us trace some of the other sources of the exercise of this power, or motives for it, or by whatever other name they are to be called. He says to Mr. Duane:
‘The president repeats, that he begs the cabinet to consider the proposed measure as his own, in the support of which he shall require no one of them to make a sacrifice of opinion or principle. Its responsibility has been assumed, after the most mature deliberation and reflection, as necessary to preserve the morals of the people, the freedom of the press, and the purity of the elective franchise.’