Interpretation of Constitution. I do not know whether this question has ever occurred to the Legislative or Executive of the United States, nor how it may have been decided. In this ignorance of the course which may have been pursued by the Government, I shall adopt the first interpretation, because I think it accords best with the general spirit of the Constitution, which seems to have arranged the creation of office among legislative powers, and because, too, this construction is, I think, sustained by the subsequent words of the same clause, and by the third clause of the same section. The sentence which follows, and forms an exception to the general provision which had been made, authorizes Congress "by law to vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." This sentence, I think, indicates an opinion in the framers of the Constitution that they had provided for all case of offices. The third section empowers the President "to fill up all vacancies that may happen during Wording of the third section of the Constitution. the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session.” This power is not confined to vacancies which may happen in offices created by law. If the convention supposed that the President might create an office, and fill it originally without the consent of the Senate, that consent would not be required for filling up a vacancy in the same office. The Constitution, then, is understood to declare that all offices of the United States, except in cases where the Constitution itself may otherwise provide, shall be established by law. Has the office of agent of fortifications been established by law? This question is elaborately considered and the conclusion reached that the sureties on the bond were liable thereon to the extent of their undertaking. NOTE As to Federal offices and power to appoint and remove, see Ex parte Hennen, 13 Peters, 230, 257; United States v. Le Baron, 19 Howard, 73, 78; United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 509; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; Mullan v. United States, 140 U. S. 240; Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, 328; United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 343; Miller, Const. U. S., ch. III; Tucker, Constitution, II, pp. 732-742; Story on Constitution, ch. XXXVII. See Marbury v. Madison, ante, pp. 1–41. In Parsons v. United States (supra), Mr. Justice Peckham gives an interesting resumé of the legislative, executive and judicial history of the power of the President with respect of removals from office, including a discussion of the purpose of Congress in the repeal of the Tenure of Office sections of the Revised Statutes. It was here held that it was the purpose of Congress in the repeal of the Tenure of Office sections of the Revised Statutes, to invest the President with the power of removal, and to enable the President to remove from office when in his discretion he regarded it for the public good, although the term of office might have been limited by the words of the statute creating the office. A critical reference (pp. 335, 336) is made to the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In the United States v. Eaton (supra), it was held that Congress had the constitutional power to authorize the President to appoint a subordinate officer, such as a Vice-consul. The ground for this conclusion is elaborately stated by Mr. Justice White. CHRONOLOGICAL DATA. 1755 John Marshall born September fourth, in village of Germantown, Fauquier county, Virginia. 1758 About this year Marshall's father moved to a place called "The Hollow," in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and in this home the family remained until 1769. 1769 John Marshall went to Westmoreland county, where he received instruction in Latin from a clergyman named Campbell for about a year. 1770 Marshall's father removed to "Oak Hill," Fauquier county, and whither John Marshall went on return from Westmoreland county. 1775 September, entered the army as a subaltern. 1779 Attended a course of law lectures by Chancellor Wythe at William and Mary College. 1780 Licensed to practice law. 1781 Resigned his commission in the army. 1782 Elected to the Legislature of Virginia and a member of Executive Council of the State. 1783 Married to Mary Willis Ambler in January and removed to Richmond soon after. 1784 Resigned his seat in Executive Council and came to the bar. Served in the Legislature in years 1784, 1787 to 1792, and 1795. 1787 Re-elected to the Legislature for the City of Richmond. 1788 Member of Federal Convention to reject or ratify Constitution of United States. 1795 Declined Attorney-Generalship offered him by Washington. 1796 Declined position of Minister to France. 749 Chronological Data. 1797 Appointed by Adams Envoy-Extraordinary to France in connection with Pinckney and Gerry. 1799 Elected a member of Congress and declined the place of associate justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1800 Appointed Secretary of War and on retirement of Pickering appointed Secretary of State. 1801 January 31st appointed Chief Justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1829 Member of Virginia State Constitutional Convention. 1831 Operation performed on Marshall at Philadelphia 1835 Died at Philadelphia, July 6th. |