Page images
PDF
EPUB

FOREWORD

DISTINGUISHED CRITIC once said that no book should be written or

A

printed unless it had a good object. This book will come under that criticism, for in writing it and in printing it there has been a distinct object-helpfulness to others. In my years of newspaper and magazine work I have often found myself seriously handicapped because I did not have ready at hand a book to which I might quickly refer for some date or fact connected with the life and service of those who had played an important part in the formation of the government. Other writers had expressed in my presence that they had met with the same trouble.

In conversing one day with some teachers, a lady who was a prominent teacher in one of the cities of the Middle West spoke of how she tried to interest her pupils in the history of the country, and had adopted a system of setting apart one hour a week in which she would talk to them about some of the men who had helped to build the nation and of her trouble oftentimes to get the data she desired. My own troubles, and the difficulties of the teacher, caused me to believe there was indeed a want that ought to be supplied. The object of this book is to supply that want.

These men who at various times have held a seat in the cabinet were very largely connected with the shaping of the government and in making it what it is today, the greatest and most successful attempt ever made to organize and conduct a government by the people themselves. They are a part of the nation's history. Some of them were great men, as the world measures greatness-great in statesmanship, great as lawyers and jurists, great in the capacity to manage and conduct successfully large business enterprises. They were, in short, Nation Builders.

Of some of them but little data could be found. Let me take as one illustration of this-Charles Lee, who served Presidents Washington and Adams as Attorney General. Letter after letter was written to citizens of Virginia who were likely to know where some account of his life might be obtained, but only a little light could be found. Encyclopedias and publications by the government were found to contain numerous errors. For instance, one of our great encyclopedias speaks in one place of John Randolph having been Secretary of State, at a time when Randolph had not reached maturity. But he never was Secretary of State. In giving the dates as to service in the cabinet they are taken from the record, and show not the date of appointment but of entering upon the office.

In concluding this "Foreword" acknowledgment should be made on the part of the author and of the publishers for aid extended and cour

tesies shown. On the part of the author, for material aid given by prominent officials in the several executive departments in securing correct data. In 1922 Secretary Hughes caused to be published a small pamphlet, historical in its character, of the Department of State. Of this the author has made liberal use. On the part of the publishers, thanks are due to the members of President Coolidge's cabinet for the authenticated photographs used. The group portraits of former cabinet members are reproductions of steel engravings preserved by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. They were kindly furnished the publishers by the Department of the Treasury.

The three illustrations showing the cabinets of Washington, Lincoln and Coolidge in session are reproduced through the courtesy of the National Photo Company, of Washington, District of Columbia. The portrait of President Washington is by the courtesy of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. It is one of the only two known to be in existence.

THE AUTHOR.

D

ORIGIN OF THE CABINET

URING THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE the executive business of the colonies was mainly conducted by committees appointed by the Colonial Congress. Under the Confederation heads were appointed by Congress for the departments of foreign affairs, of finance, and of war, but in no sense of the word did they form a cabinet; each acted separately, reporting to Congress, generally through some committee of that body.

When the Convention met in Philadelphia to form "a more perfect union," the main guide for the making of a constitution was that of England, and at first many of the delegates favored a government by a cabinet similar to that then and now existing in Great Britain.

The Constitution as finally adopted and referred to the several states for ratification makes no provision for a cabinet or council, such as is known in some of the other countries, but this conclusion was only reached after long discussion and after numerous suggestions were made and voted upon.

The plan submitted and supported by Mr. Hamilton contemplated a supreme executive "to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of finance, of war, and of foreign affairs," these being the only executive departments he deemed necessary. The President was to be the head of this cabinet or council.

Oliver Ellsworth proposed an "executive council" to be composed of the President of the Senate (a vice president not being contemplated), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the heads of the several departments of foreign affairs, of war, of finance, and of marine, when such departments were created by Congress. The President was not to be a member of this council.

Gouverneur Morris submitted a more elaborate plan. His plan proposed the establishment of Secretary of Domestic Affairs, Secretary of Commerce and Finance, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and Secretary of Marine. These with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were to make up a council of state, "to assist the President in conducting public affairs." The duties of each were defined, the Chief Justice being authorized to recommend such alterations of and additions to the laws of the United States "as may, in his opinion, be necessary to the due administration of justice, and such as may promote useful learning and inculcate sound morality throughout the Union."

All these suggestions were negatived by the Convention, and no provision enacted for the organization of a cabinet, except that found in clause 1 of section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the President may require in writing the opinions of the principal officer of each of the executive departments, etc.

It is not mandatory for him to do so. He is authorized only to require such opinions as may relate to the duties of their respective offices, although it is now a matter of common occurrence for the President to consult his cabinet generally upon any important question, especially of policy.

During the Convention there was much discussion as to giving the President the power of removal of the heads of the various departments without the consent of the Senate, but the decision was in favor of such power. This discussion arose again and again in Congress after the establishment of the present form of government, although it had been under thorough discussion in the various states at the time ratification of the Constitution was under consideration, the friends holding that it was necessary to have the consent of the Senate in cases of removal as in those of original appointment. It is fully and elaborately discussed in number 77 of that remarkable series of articles known as "The Federalist." In that article this sentence occurs: "The consent of that body (the Senate) would be necessary to displace as well as appoint." Only two cabinet officers have been peremptorily dismissed-Secretary of State Pickering, by President John Adams, and Secretary of the Treasury Duane, by President Andrew Jackson. President Andrew Johnson attempted to dismiss Secretary of War Stanton, but was prevented by the "Tenure of Office" Act.

It may be said that when the Constitution went into effect in 1789 it was the general opinion that no officer appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate could be removed without the consent of that body. During the first session of the first Congress the question was discussed at great length, especially in the House of Representatives. A bill was introduced creating the Department of Foreign Affairs, now the Department of State. Among its provisions was one giving the President authority to remove at pleasure the head of the department. The discussion is reported in "The Annals of Congress," vol. 1.

On one side it was contended that the power to appoint and the power to remove must go together. If the President could not appoint without the advice and consent of the Senate, the consent of that body must, of necessity, be given for removal. On the other side it was contended that the power to appoint and the power to remove were executive acts; that if the Constitution had not associated the Senate with the President in the matter of appointment, Congress could not have given it that power, and as the Constitution had not united the Senate with the President in the power to remove, Congress is not authorized to so associate them. One of the strongest opponents of that provision of the bill was Representative Thomas Sumter, of South Carolina. In the course of debate (see "Annals of Congress," vol. 1, page 591), he said: "This bill appears, to my mind, so subversive of the Constitution, and its consequences so destructive of the liberties of

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »