4

was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."

Mr. Govr Morris admits corruption & some few other offences to be such as ought to be impeachable; but thought the cases ought to be enumerated & defined:

Mr. (Madison)-thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislative or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.

Mr. Pinkney did not see the necessity of impeachments. He was sure they ought not to issue from the Legislature who would in that case hold them as a rod over the Executive and by that means effectually destroy his independence. His revisionary power in particular would be rendered altogether insignificant.

Mr. Gerry urged the necessity of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maximum would never be adopted here that the chief Magistrate could do (no) wrong.

Mr. King expressed his apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive & Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the case if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary therefore that a forum should be established for trying misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good behaviour?-The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature; Like them particularly the Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6 years. he would periodically

Crossed out: "for life".

* Crossed out: "He wished this were the case. But it was not."

5

be tried for his behaviour by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he hold his office during good behavior, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised; But under no circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.

Mr. Randolph. The propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him; Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections. He is aware of the necessity of proceeding with a cautious hand, and of excluding as much as possible the influence of the Legislature from the business. He suggested for consideration an idea which had fallen (from Col Hamilton) of composing a forum out of the Judges belonging to the States: and even of requiring some preliminary inquest whether just grounds of impeachment existed.

Doctr. Franklin mentioned the case of the Prince of Orange during the late war. An agreement was made between France & Holland; by which their two fleets were to unite at a certain time & place. The Du(t)ch fleet did not appear. Every body began to wonder at it. At length it was suspected that the Statholder was at the bottom of the matter. This suspicion prevailed more & more. Yet as he could not be impeached and no regular examination took place, he remained in his office, and strengtheing his own party, as the party opposed to him became formidable, he gave birth to the most violent animosities & contentions. Had he been impeachable, a regular & peaceable inquiry would have taken place and he would if guilty have been duly punished, if innocent restored to the confidence of the public.

Mr. King remarked that the case of the Statholder was not applicable. He held his place for life, and was not periodically elected. In the former case impeachments are proper to secure good behaviour. In the latter they are unnecessary; the periodical responsibility to the electors being an equivalent security.

4

Mr Wilson observed that if the idea were to be pursued, the Senators who are to hold their places during the same term with the Executive. ought to be subject to impeachment & removal.

Mr. Pinkney apprehended that some gentlemen reasoned on a supposition that the Executive was to have powers which would not be committed to him: (He presumed) that his powers would be so circumscribed as to render impeachments unnecessary.

Mr. Govr. Morris,'s opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by

4 Crossed out "trial".

Crossed out "rendering them u

6

a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay without being able to guard agst it by displacing him. One would think the King of England well secured agst bribery. He has as it were a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery; Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office. This Magistrate is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people are the King. When we make him amenable to Justice however we should take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on the Legislature.

(It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay.)

On ye. Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments?

Mas. no. Ct. ay. N.J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N.C. sy. S.C.no. Geo-ay- [Ayes-8; noes-2.]

Taken from Journal.

Debate in the First Congress, 1789, on the Establishment of Executive Departments and the Power of Removal From Office

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS

On motion of Mr. BOUDINOT, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, Mr. TRUMBULL in the Chair.

Mr. BOUDINOT.-I rise, Mr. Chairman, with diffidence, to introduce a subject to the consideration of the committee, which I had hopes would have been brought forward by an abler hand; the pressing necessity of it must alone be my excuse. The great Executive departments which were in existence under the late Confederation, are now at an end; at least so far as not to be able to conduct the business of the United States. If we take up the present Constitution, we shall find it contemplates departments of. an Executive nature in aid of the President: it then remains for us to carry this intention into effect, which I take it will be best done by settling principles for organizing them in this place, and afterwards appoint a select committee to bring in a bill for the same. I need say little to convince gentlemen of the necessity which presses us into a pursuit of this measure. They know that our national debt is considerable; the interest on our foreign loans, and the instalments due, amount to two millions of dollars. This arrearage, together with the domestic debt, is of great magnitude, and it will be attended with the most dreadful consequences to let these affairs run into confusion and ruin, for want of proper regulations to keep them in order.

I shall move the committee, therefore, to come to some such resolution as this: That an office be established for the management of the finances of the United States, at the head of which shall be an officer to be denominated the Secretary of Finance. I am not tenacious of the style, perhaps some other may be proper, but the object I have in view is to establish the department; after which we may go on to narrate the duties of the officer, and accommodate the name to the acts he is to perform. The departments under the late Constitution are not to be models for us to form ours upon, by reason of the essential change which has taken place in the Government, and the new distribution of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers.

If gentlemen then agree with me so far, I shall proceed to restrain the Secretary of Finance, and all persons under him, from being concerned in trade or commerce, and make it his duty to superintend the treasury and the finances of the United States, examine the public debts and engagements, inspect the collection and expenditure of the revenue, and to form and digest plans for its improvement. There may be other duties which gentlemen may add, as I do not pretent to have perfectly enumerated them all. After this point is settled, we may then

(7)

8

go to the consideration of the War Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs; but, for the present, I would wish to confine ourselves to the Department of Finance.

Mr. BENSON wished the committee to consider what he judged to be a previous question, namely, how many departments there should be established? He approved of the division mentioned by the gentlemen; but would, with his leave, move that there be established in aid of the Chief Magistrate, three Executive departments, to be severally denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and War. After determining this question, if it was a proper division, the Committee might proceed to enumerate the duties which should be attached to each.

Mr. BOUDINOT was not tenacious of the form he had thrown his motion into, it was the substance he contended for; he had therefore no objection to the gentleman's motion. While he was up, he would correct a mistake into which he had fallen; it respected the arrearage of the interest and instalments of the foreign debt. He had learned from good authority, since he sat down, that there was nothing due on this account, but that it was completely paid up to the present year; but this did not do away the necessity of the present motion.

Mr. BLAND objected to the last motion as too indefinite, and feared the committee would precipitate the business, if they did not order the motions to lie on the table until to-morrow, or rather rise and refer it to be digested by a select committee.

Mr. WHITE wished gentlemen had been more particular in bringing this question forward, and had pointed out the nature and extent of the powers proposed to be given, so that his mind might be able to embrace the whole subject.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he could apologize for not bringing the business on in another way. It seemed to be a settled point in the House that a Committee of the Whole was the proper place for determining principles before they were sent elsewhere; he had therefore adopted that mode on the present occasion, though his own judgment would incline him to pursue that last mentioned by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BLAND.) He conceived the necessity of having such an office was indisputable; the Government could not be carried on without it; but there may be a question with respect to the mode in which the business of the office shall be conducted; there may also be a question respecting the constitution of it, but none with respect to the establishment of either of the three departments he had mentioned.

Mr. PARTRIDGE wished the committee to attend to one object at a time. If they had determined upon the propriety of the Department of Finance, they could go on to the next, and so on until they had decided upon all they conceived necessary; for his part, he could not see any reason for determining there should be three or five great departments; or what was the object of such a question, unless it was to decide the whole business at once.

Mr. BENSON said, his motion was founded upon the Constitutional division of these powers; the Constitution contemplated them, because it gave the President the right of requiring the opinion of the principal officer in each of the Executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. If gentlemen were inclined to waive the determination for the present, he had no