Within three days after the passage by the Senate, in executive session, of the resolution 56 directing the Attorney-General to transmit to that body the documents and papers on file relating to the management and conduct of the office from which Mr. Duskin had been removed, and to which Mr. Burnett had been nominated, the Attorney-General replied thereto as follows:
In response to the said resolution, the President of the United States directs me to say that the papers that were in this department relating to the fitness of John D. Burnett, recently nominated to said office, having already been sent to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the papers and documents which are mentioned in the said resolution, and still remaining in the custody5 of this department, having exclusive reference to the suspension by the President of George M. Duskin, the late incumbent6 of the office of District Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, it is not considered that the public interests will be promoted by a compliance7 with said resolution and the transmission of the papers and documents therein mentioned to the Senate in executive session.
This response of the Attorney-General was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Early in February, 1886, a majority of the committee made a report to the Senate, in which it seems to have been claimed that all papers—whatever may be their personal, private, or confidential8 character—if placed on file, or, in other words, if deposited in the office 57 of the head of a department, became thereupon official papers, and that the Senate had therefore a right to their transmittal when they had reference to the conduct of a suspended official, and when that body had under advisement the confirmation9 of his proposed successor. Much stress was laid upon the professions made by the President of his adherence10 to Civil Service reform methods, and it was broadly hinted that, in the face of six hundred and forty-three suspensions from office, these professions could hardly be sincere. Instances were cited in which papers and information had been demanded and furnished in previous administrations, and these were claimed to be precedents12 in favor of the position assumed by the majority of the committee. Almost at the outset of the report it was declared:
The important question, then, is whether it is within the constitutional competence13 of either House of Congress to have access to the official papers and documents in the various public offices of the United States, created by laws enacted14 by themselves.
In conclusion, the majority recommended the adoption15 by the Senate of the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the Senate hereby expresses its condemnation16 of the refusal of the Attorney-General, under whatever influence, to send to the Senate 58 copies of papers called for by its resolution of the 25th of January and set forth17 in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, as in violation18 of his official duty and subversive19 of the fundamental principles of the Government, and of a good administration thereof.
Resolved, That it is under these circumstances the duty of the Senate to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals of officers, the documents and papers in reference to the supposed official or personal misconduct of whom are withheld20 by the Executive or any head of a department when deemed necessary by the Senate and called for in considering the matter.
Resolved, That the provision of Section 1754 of the Revised Statutes21, declaring that persons honorably discharged from the military or naval22 service by reason of disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred23 in the line of duty shall be preferred for appointment to civil offices provided they are found to possess the business capacity necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of such offices, ought to be faithfully and fully24 put in execution, and that to remove or to propose to remove any such soldier whose faithfulness, competency, and character are above reproach, and to give place to another who has not rendered such service, is a violation of the spirit of the law and of the practical gratitude25 the people and the Government of the United States owe to the defenders26 of constitutional liberty and the integrity of the Government.
The first of these resolutions contains charges which, if true, should clearly furnish grounds 59 for the impeachment27 of the Attorney-General—if not the President under whose “influence” he concededly refused to submit the papers demanded by the Senate. A public officer whose acts are “in violation of his official duty and subversive of the fundamental principles of the Government, and of a good administration thereof,” can scarcely add anything to his predicament of guilt28.
The second resolution has the merit of honesty in confessing that the intent and object of the demand upon the Attorney-General was to secure the demanded papers and documents for the purpose of passing upon the President’s reasons for suspension. Beyond this, the declaration it contains, that it was the “duty of the Senate to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals of officers” when the papers and documents relating to their “supposed official or personal misconduct” were withheld, certainly obliged the Senate, if the resolution should be adopted, and if the good faith of that body in the controversy29 should be assumed, to reject or ignore all nominations31 made to succeed suspended officers unless the documents and papers upon which the suspension was based were furnished and the Senate was thus given an opportunity to review and reverse 60 or confirm the President’s executive act, resting, by the very terms of existing law, “in his discretion32.”
The third resolution is grandly phrased, and its sentiment is patriotic33, noble, and inspiriting. Inasmuch, however, as the removal of veteran soldiers from office did not seem to assume any considerable prominence34 in the arraignment35 of the administration, the object of the resolution is slightly obscure, unless, as was not unusual in those days, the cause of the old soldier was impressed into the service of the controversy for purposes of general utility.
A minority report was subsequently submitted, signed by all the Democratic members of the committee, in which the allegations of the majority report were sharply controverted36. It was therein positively37 asserted that no instance could be found in the practice of the Government whose similarity in its essential features entitled it to citation38 as an authoritative39 precedent11; and that neither the Constitution nor the existing law afforded any justification40 for the action of the Senate in the promises.
These two reports, of course, furnished abundant points of controversy. About the time of their submission41, moreover, another 61 document was addressed to the Senate, which, whatever else may be said of it, seems to have contributed considerably42 to the spirit and animation43 of the discussion that ensued. This was a message from the President, in which his position concerning the matter in dispute was defined. In this communication the complete and absolute responsibility of the President for all suspensions and the fact that the Executive had been afforded no opportunity to speak for himself was stated in the following terms:
Though these suspensions are my executive acts based upon considerations addressed to me alone, and for which I am wholly responsible, I have had no invitation from the Senate to state the position which I have felt constrained44 to assume in relation to the same, or to interpret for myself my acts and motives45 in the premises46. In this condition of affairs I have forborne addressing the Senate upon the subject, lest I might be accused of thrusting myself unbidden upon the attention of that body.
This statement was accompanied by the expression of a hope that the misapprehension of the Executive position, indicated in the majority report just presented and published, might excuse his then submitting a communication. He commented upon the statement in the report that “the important question, then, is 62 whether it is within the constitutional competence of either House of Congress to have access to the official papers and documents in the various public offices of the United States, created by laws enacted by themselves,” by suggesting that though public officials of the United States might be created by laws enacted by the two Houses of Congress, this fact did not necessarily subject their offices to congressional control, but, on the contrary, that “these instrumentalities were created for the benefit of the people, and to answer the general purposes of government under the Constitution and the laws; and that they are unencumbered by any lien47 in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the price of their creation.” While not conceding that the Senate had in any case the right to review Executive action in suspending officials, the President disclaimed49 any intention to withhold50 official papers and documents when requested; and as to such papers and documents, he expressed his willingness, because they were official, to continue, as he had theretofore done in all cases, to lay them before the Senate without inquiry51 as to the use to be made of them, and relying upon the Senate for their legitimate52 63 utilization53. The proposition was expressly denied, however, that papers and documents inherently private or confidential, addressed to the President or a head of department, having reference to an act so entirely54 executive in its nature as the suspension of an official, and which was by the Constitution as well as by existing law placed within the discretion of the President, were changed in their nature and instantly became official when placed for convenience or for other reasons in the custody of a public department. The contention55 of the President was thus stated:
There is no mysterious power of transmutation in departmental custody, nor is there magic in the undefined and sacred solemnity of departmental files. If the presence of these papers in the public office is a stumbling-block in the way of the performance of senatorial duty, it can be easily removed.
The Senate’s purposes were characterized in the message as follows:
The requests and demands which by the score have for nearly three months been presented to the different departments of the Government, whatever may be their form, have but one complexion56. They assume the right of the Senate to sit in judgment57 upon the exercise of my exclusive discretion and Executive function, for which I am solely58 responsible to 64 the people from whom I have so lately received the sacred trust of office. My oath to support and defend the Constitution, my duty to the people who have chosen me to execute the powers of their great office and not relinquish59 them, and my duty to the chief magistracy which I must preserve unimpaired in all its dignity and vigor60, compel me to refuse compliance with these demands.
This was immediately supplemented by the following concession61 of the independent and unlimited62 power of the Senate in the matter of confirmation:
To the end that the service may be improved, the Senate is invited to the fullest scrutiny63 of the persons submitted to them for public office, in recognition of the constitutional power of that body to advise and consent to their appointment. I shall continue, as I have thus far done, to furnish, at the request of the confirming body, all the information I possess touching64 the fitness of the nominees65 placed before them for their action, both when they are proposed to fill vacancies66 and to take the place of suspended officials. Upon a refusal to confirm, I shall not assume the right to ask the reasons for the action of the Senate nor question its determination. I cannot think that anything more is required to secure worthy68 incumbents69 in public office than a careful and independent discharge of our respective duties within their well-defined limits.
As it was hardly concealed70 that by no means the least important senatorial purpose in the 65 pending48 controversy was to discredit71 the Civil Service reform pledges and professions of the Executive, this issue was thus distinctly invited at the close of the message:
Every pledge I have made by which I have placed a limitation upon my exercise of executive power has been faithfully redeemed72. Of course the pretense73 is not put forth that no mistakes have been committed; but not a suspension has been made except it appeared to my satisfaction that the public welfare would be promoted thereby74. Many applications for suspension have been denied, and an adherence to the rule laid down to govern my action as to such suspensions has caused much irritation75 and impatience76 on the part of those who have insisted upon more changes in the offices.
The pledges I have made were made to the people, and to them I am responsible for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling77 to submit my actions and official conduct to them for judgment.
There are no grounds for an allegation that the fear of being found false to my professions influences me in declining to submit to the demands of the Senate. I have not constantly refused to suspend officials and thus incurred the displeasure of political friends, and yet wilfully78 broken faith with the people, for the sake of being false to them.
Neither the discontent of party friends nor the allurements79, constantly offered, of confirmation of appointees conditioned upon the avowal80 that suspensions have been made on party grounds alone, nor the threat proposed in the resolutions now before the 66 Senate that no confirmation will be made unless the demands of that body be complied with, are sufficient to discourage or deter67 me from following in the way which I am convinced leads to better government for the people.
The temper and disposition81 of the Senate may be correctly judged, I think, from the remarks made upon the presentation of this message by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the acknowledged leader of the majority. On a formal motion that the message be printed and lie upon the table, he moved as an amendment82 that it be referred to the committee of which he was chairman, and said:
I merely wish to remark, in moving to refer this document to the Committee on the Judiciary, that it very vividly83 brought to my mind the communications of King Charles I to the Parliament, telling them what, in conducting their affairs, they ought to do and ought not to do; and I think I am safe in saying that it is the first time in the history of the republican United States that any President of the United States has undertaken to interfere3 with the deliberations of either House of Congress on questions pending before them, otherwise than by messages on the state of the union which the Constitution commands him to make from time to time. This message is devoted84 simply to a question for the Senate itself, in regard to itself, that it has under consideration. That is its singularity. I think it will 67 strike reflecting people in this country as somewhat extraordinary—if in this day of reform anything at all can be thought extraordinary.
King Charles I fared badly at the hands of the Parliament; but it was most reassuring85 to know that, after all said and done, the Senate of the United States was not a bloodthirsty body, and that the chairman of its Committee on the Judiciary was one of the most courteous86 and amiable87 of men—at least when outside of the Senate.
The debate upon the questions presented by the report and resolutions recommended by the majority of the committee, and by the minority report and the presidential message, occupied almost exclusively the sessions of the Senate for over two weeks. More than twenty-five Senators participated, and the discussion covered such a wide range of argument that all considerations relevant to the subject, and some not clearly related to it, seem to have been presented. At the close of the debate, the resolution condemning88 the Attorney-General for withholding89 the papers and documents which the Senate had demanded was passed by thirty-two votes in the affirmative and twenty-five in the negative; the next resolution, declaring it to be the duty of the Senate to refuse its advice 68 and consent to proposed removals of officers when papers and documents in reference to their alleged90 misconduct were withheld, was adopted by a majority of only a single vote; and the proclamation contained in the third resolution, setting forth the obligations of the Government and its people to the veterans of the civil war, was unanimously approved, except for one dissenting91 voice.
The controversy thus closed arose from the professed92 anxiety of the majority in the Senate to guard the interests of an official who was suspended from office in July, 1885, and who was still claimed to be in a condition of suspension. In point of fact, however, that official’s term of office expired by limitation on the 20th of December, 1885—before the demand for papers and documents relating to his conduct in office was made, before the resolutions and reports of the Committee on the Judiciary were presented, and before the commencement of the long discussion in defense93 of the right of a suspended incumbent. This situation escaped notice in Executive quarters, because the appointee to succeed the suspended officer having been actually installed and in the discharge of the duties of the position for more than six months, and his nomination30 having been sent 69 to the Senate very soon after the beginning of its session, the situation or duration of the former incumbent’s term was not kept in mind. The expiration94 of his term was, however, distinctly alleged in the Senate on the second day of the discussion, and by the first speaker in opposition95 to the majority report. The question of suspension or removal was therefore eliminated from the case and the discussion as related to the person suspended continued as a sort of post-mortem proceeding96. Shortly after the resolutions of the committee were passed, the same person who superseded97 the suspended and defunct98 officer was again nominated to succeed him by reason of the expiration of his term; and this nomination was confirmed.
At last, after stormy weather, Duskin, the suspended, and Burnett, his successor, were at rest. The earnest contention that beat about their names ceased, and no shout of triumph disturbed the supervening quiet.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
animus
|
|
| n.恶意；意图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
finesse
|
|
| n.精密技巧，灵巧，手腕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
custody
|
|
| n.监护，照看，羁押，拘留 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
incumbent
|
|
| adj.成为责任的，有义务的；现任的，在职的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
compliance
|
|
| n.顺从；服从；附和；屈从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
confidential
|
|
| adj.秘（机）密的，表示信任的，担任机密工作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
adherence
|
|
| n.信奉，依附，坚持，固着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
precedents
|
|
| 引用单元； 范例( precedent的名词复数 )； 先前出现的事例； 前例； 先例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
competence
|
|
| n.能力，胜任，称职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
subversive
|
|
| adj.颠覆性的，破坏性的；n.破坏份子，危险份子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
nominations
|
|
| n.提名，任命( nomination的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
discretion
|
|
| n.谨慎；随意处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
arraignment
|
|
| n.提问，传讯，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
controverted
|
|
| v.争论，反驳，否定( controvert的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
37
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
citation
|
|
| n.引用，引证，引用文；传票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
authoritative
|
|
| adj.有权威的，可相信的；命令式的；官方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
animation
|
|
| n.活泼，兴奋，卡通片／动画片的制作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
lien
|
|
| n.扣押权，留置权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
pending
|
|
| prep.直到，等待…期间；adj.待定的；迫近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
disclaimed
|
|
| v.否认( disclaim的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
withhold
|
|
| v.拒绝，不给；使停止，阻挡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
utilization
|
|
| n.利用，效用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
complexion
|
|
| n.肤色；情况，局面；气质，性格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
relinquish
|
|
| v.放弃，撤回，让与，放手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
vigor
|
|
| n.活力，精力，元气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
scrutiny
|
|
| n.详细检查，仔细观察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
nominees
|
|
| n.被提名者，被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
vacancies
|
|
| n.空房间( vacancy的名词复数 )；空虚；空白；空缺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
deter
|
|
| vt.阻止，使不敢，吓住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
incumbents
|
|
| 教区牧师( incumbent的名词复数 )； 教会中的任职者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
discredit
|
|
| vt.使不可置信；n.丧失信义；不信，怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
redeemed
|
|
| adj. 可赎回的，可救赎的 动词redeem的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
pretense
|
|
| n.矫饰，做作，借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
impatience
|
|
| n.不耐烦，急躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
wilfully
|
|
| adv.任性固执地；蓄意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
allurements
|
|
| n.诱惑( allurement的名词复数 )；吸引；诱惑物；有诱惑力的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
avowal
|
|
| n.公开宣称，坦白承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
reassuring
|
|
| a.使人消除恐惧和疑虑的，使人放心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
amiable
|
|
| adj.和蔼可亲的，友善的，亲切的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
condemning
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的现在分词 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
withholding
|
|
| 扣缴税款 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
dissenting
|
|
| adj.不同意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
expiration
|
|
| n.终结，期满，呼气，呼出物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
superseded
|
|
| [医]被代替的，废弃的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
defunct
|
|
| adj.死亡的；已倒闭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |