dismissing from office those who had opposed his election; of dis missing from office for mere difference of opinion!

But it will be argued that if the summary process of dismission be expedient in some cases, why take it away altogether? The bill under consideration does not disturb the power. By the usage of the government, not I think by the constitution, the President practically possesses the power to dismiss those who are unworthy of holding these offices. By no practice or usage, but that which he himself has created, has he the power to dismiss meritorious officers only because they differ from him in politics. The principal object of the bill is to require the President, in cases of dismission, to communicate the reasons which have induced him to dismiss the officer; in other words, to make an arbitrary and despotic power a responsible power. It is not to be supposed that, if the President is bound publicly to state his reasons, that he would act from passion or caprice, or without any reason. He would be ashamed to avow that he discharged the officer because he opposed his election. And yet this mild regulation of the power is opposed by the friends of the ndministration! They think it unreasonable that the President should state his reasons. If he has none, perhaps it is.

But, Mr. President, although the bill is, I think, right in principle, it does not seem to me to go far enough. It makes no provision for the insufficiency of the reasons of the President, by restoring or doing justice to the injured officer. It will be some, but not sufficient restraint against abuses. I have, therefore, prepared an amendment, which I beg leave to offer, but which I will not press against the decided wishes of those having the immediate care of the bill. By this amendment, as to all offices created by law, with certain ex

The amendment was in the following words:

Be it further enacted, That in all instances of appointment to office, by the Presi dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the power of removal shall be exercised only in concurrence with the Senate; and when the Senate is not in session, the President may suspend any such officer, communicating his reasons for the suspension during the first month of its succeeding session, and if the Senate concur with him the officer shall be removed, but if it do not concur with him, the officer shall be restored to office.

Mr. CLAY was subsequently induced not to urge his amendment at this time.

reptions, the power at present exercised is made a suspensory power. The President may, in the vacation of the Senate, suspend the officer, and appoint a temporary successor. At the next session of the Senate he is to communicate his reasons: and if they are deemed sufficient, the suspension is confirmed, and the Senate will pass upon the new officer. If insufficient, the displaced officer is to be restored. This amendment is substantially the same proposition as one which I submitted to the consideration of the Senate at its last session.--. Under this suspensory power, the President will be able to discharge all defaulters or delinquents; and it cannot be doubted that the Senate will concur in all such dismissions. On the other hand, it will insure the integrity and independence of the officer, since he will feel that if he honestly and faithfully discharges his official duties, he cannot be displaced arbitrarily, or from mere caprice, or because he has independently exercised the elective franchise.

It is contended that the President cannot see that the laws are faithfully executed, unless he possesses the power of removal. That injunction of the constitution imports a mere general superintendence, except where he is specially charged with the execution of a law. It is not necessary that he should have the power of dismission. It will be a sufficient security against the abuses of subordinate officers that the eye of the President is upon them, and that he can communicate their delinquency. The State Executives do not possess this power of dismission. In several, if not all, the States, the Governor cannot even dismiss the Secretary of State; yet we have heard no complaints of the inefficiency of State Executives, or of the administration of the laws of the States. The President has no power to dismiss the judiciary; and it might be asked, with equal plausibility, how he could see that the laws are executed, if the judges will not conform to his opinion, and he cannot dismiss them?

But it is not necessary to argue the general question, in considering either the original bill or the amendment. The former does not touch the power of dismission, and the latter only makes it conditional instead of being absolute.

It may be said that there are certain great officers, heads of departments and foreign ministers, between whom and the president entire confidence should exist. This is admitted. But surely if the Presi

dent removes any of them, the people ought to know the cause. The amendment, however, does not reach those classes of officers. And supposing, as I do, that the legislative authority is competent to regulate the exercise of the power of dismission, there can be no just cause to apprehend that it will fail to make such modifications and exceptions as may be called for by the public interest; especially as whatever bill may be passed must obtain the approbation of the chief magistrate. And if it should attempt to impose improper restrictions upon the executive authority, that would furnish a legitimate occasion for the exercise of the veto. In conclusion, I shall most heartily vote for the bill, with or without the amendment which I have proposed.

ON THE LAND DISTRIBUTION.

IN THE SENATE of the United STATES, DECEMBER 24, 1835.

[Former attempts to procure a Distribution to the several States of the Proceeds of the Public Lands having been baffled by Executive influence and the Executive Veto, Mr. CLAY, on the day above indicated, introduced the plan anew, advocating it as follows:]

ALTHOUGH I find myself borne down by the severest affliction with which Providence has ever been pleased to visit me, I have thought that my private griefs ought not longer to prevent me from attempting, ill as I feel qualified, to discharge my public duties. And I now rise, in pursuance of the notice which has been given, to ask leave to introduce a bill to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United States, and for granting land to certain States.

I feel it incumbent on me to make a brief explanation of the highly important measure which I have now the honor to propose. The bill, which I desire to introduce, provides for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands in the years 1833, '34, '35, '36 and '37, among the twenty-four States of the Union, and conforms substantially to that which passed in 1833. It is therefore of a temporary character; but if it shall be found to have a salutary operation, it will be in the power of a future Congress to give it an indefinite continuance, and, if otherwise, it will expire by its own terms. In the event of war unfortunately breaking out with any foreign power, the bill is to cease, and the fund which it distributes is to be applied to the prosecution of the war. The bill directs that ten per cent. of the nett proceeds of the public lands, sold within the limits of the seven new States, shall be set apart for them, in addition to the five per cent. reserved by their several compacts with the United States; and that theresidue of the proceeds, whether from sales made in the States or Territories, shall be divided among the twenty-four States in pro

portion to their respective federal population. In this respect the bill conforms to that which was introduced in 1832. For one I should have been willing to have allowed the new States twelve and a half per cent., but as that was objected to by the President, in his veto message, and has been opposed in other quarters, I thought it best to restrict the allowance to the more moderate sum. The bill also contains large and liberal grants of land to several of the new States, to place them upon an equality with others to which the bounty of Congress has been heretofore extended, and provides that, when other States shall be admitted into the Union, they shall receive their share of the common fund.

The nett amount of the sales of the public lands in the year 1833, was the sum of $3,967,682 55, in the year 1834, was $4,857,600 69, and in the year 1835, according to actual receipts in the three first quarters and an estimate of the fourth, is $12,222,121 15; making an aggregate for the three years of $21,047,404 39. This aggregate is what the bill proposes to distribute and pay to the twenty-four States on the first day of may, 1836, upon the principles which I have stated. The difference between the estimate made by the Secretary of the Treasury and that which I have offered of the product of the last quarter of this year, arises from my having taken, as the probable sum, one-third of the total amount of the three first quarters, and he some other conjectural sum. Deducting from the $21,047,404 39 the fifteen per cent. to which the seven new States, according to the bill, will be first entitled, amounting to $2,612,350 18, there will remain for distribution among the twenty-four States of the Union the sum of $18,435,054 21. Of this sum the proportion of Kentucky will be $960,947 41; of Virginia, the sum of $1,581,669 39; of North Carolina, $988,632 42; and of Pennsylvania, $2,083,233 32. The proportion of Indiana, including the fifteen per cent. will be $855,588 23; of Ohio, $1,677,110 84, and of Mississippi, $958,945 42. And the proportions of all the twenty-four States are indicated in a table which I hold in my hand, prepared at my instance in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, and to which any Senator may have access. The grounds on which the extra.

*The following is the table referred to by Mr. CLAY:

Statement showing the dividend of each State (according to the federal population) of the proceeds of the Public Lands, during the years 1833-4 and '85, after de