« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
* tests of the state will certainly be prostrated, must apa pear to be such a dereliction of all sense of propriety; as will stamp his future character for ever; and then, he could only have pretended to be a republican, in order to aggrandize himself and get into power; or his present cona duct would not be so decidedly hostile to every principle of genuine patriotism and love of his country!
It is the duty of every mañ to give his fellow-citizens such information as he may possess, with respect to the conduct of public men, this consideration has occasioned the foregoing reflections being offered to their view, and it will remain for them to decide between the governor and council on the present question. That the party who shall be found to have deserted their interests, either for the gratification of personal ambition, or from any other private or sinister 'motive whatever, may be conssigned to merited neglect and contempt, which will teach others, that no one, who, Janus like, wears a double countenance, and under that mask attempts to deceive them, will meet with their countenance or support.
REPUBLICANUS. IQ The governor has published the resolution of the senate, but the resolution passed by both houses, which made directly against him, he has suppressed the resto son must be obvious, and needs no comment.
FROM THE AMERICAN.
1o pursue the ignes fatai of anonymous public cations, may possibly lead into the filth and mire, where those noxious vapours emit a glow-worm light, only to mislead and disappear: still where explanations have once commenced, the malevolence of the times might construe unfavourably, silence on subsequent charges however contemptible their source or exceptionable their form. This observation can alone justify a reply to a pub. lication in your paper of the 14th instant, under the sige
nature of Republicanus, which is a motley assemblage of wilful misquotation from our constitution, conclusions from real passages made in contempt of the rules of reason, and malignant fabrications, calculated to impeach the motives of the governor of the state.
As much of this matter has already been anticipated and fully replied to, in the different publications of the Civil Officer, unnecessary repetitions will be here avoid. ed. In fact the constitutional argument of this writer, is little more than a copious dissertation against the exclu. sive right of the governor to nominate to office. In reply to this unmeaning farrago it might be simply asked, whether one word has ever been said by the governor or the Civil Officer, respecting such exclusive right of nomination? In the letter addressed by the council to the legislature, it was thought proper to raise this phantom in order to combat it : Republicanus improving the hint, has carried it through all the evolutions of modern pole. mical tactics : But the artifice of exciting a clamour, in order to withdraw the public attention from the real question, has become too trite to be longer successful. The constitution of Maryland, it must be repeated, ex. pressly vests the appointment of officers in the governor, to be made by and with the advice and consent of the council; but it says not one word about nomination-it neither creates nor recognizes any such power-it is a term not only unknown to our constitution and laws, but, it is believed, that no such authority as a distinct power, will be found in the constitutions of any of those states, that first formed the confederation, nor in any of their laws during their colonial government. As Mr. Jay has justly observed in his address on a similar subject, to the legislature of New York . A governor cannot appoint without nominating—the vesting him therefore with the right to appoint, must necessarily convey the subordinate or incidental power of nominating, without which, the. right of appointing could not possibly be exercised.”. It appears from the same document, that under a similar formulary of appointing by and with the advice and consent of the council, the governor of that state had solely nomia nated to office, without a doubt of its propriety, for
about twenty years, and until a majority of the legisla.'
The right of nomination, as has been shewn, and as will be still farther elucidated, is no distinct and independent power; it is from its nature only one of the in. çidental' means of carrying into execution'the power of appointment; and it has really nothing to do with the construction of the constitution of Maryland, to which' it is unknown. The merits of the question between the governor and council here, will be found solely to rest on the true import and meaning of that advice and con: sent to the appointments of the governor, which the council are authorised to give : The question on the pare ticular case which has occurred between them, naturally
divides itself into two points—first, is that advice and. consent imperative and obligatory, so that he must ap: point whomever they advise, whether he approves or not? If so, he is a mere machine and instrument in their hands
and the consent of the council to such an appointment of the governor is not only absurd, but a mockery. Second, does the right to advise and consent to the apo pointment of the governor, veșt an authority in the council to appoint of themselves, withouț the governor being present or having any agency in the appointment ? If so the governor is perfectly useless and unnecessary, even as an instrument; and both the words advice and consent become absolutely ludicrous : In fact the council then advise themselves, and consent to their own acts. And this was precisely the case of the appointment by the council of the Susquehanna commissioners. Such folly, absurdity and abuse, may render the interposition of a nomination necessary hereafter ; but as they had never happened during the provincial government, under the same words, so they could not have been foreseen by the convention whọ formed the constitution of Maryland,
It is admitted that doubts early occurred, after our in, dependence, as to the true import and meaning of the terms advice and consent of council-theşe did not ori. ginate in New York. More than twenty years ago, twą young gentlemen of great talents and enterprize, then members of the council in Virginia, suggested their right to give advice to the governor, when șe did not ask it; but it was never understood by the Civil Officer, that they contended that he was obliged to take their advice whether he approved of it or not. He then and always since has considered their construction to extend no far.' ther, than to claim a right to offer any advice they thought proper, instead of being confined to confirming or negațiving the governor's propositions ; and to have their advice so given, entered on the journals, to justify, themselves, or criminate him, to their constituents, whenever they differed în opinion.
In order to avoid such doubts and their consequences, in those constituțions which have been lately formed in
these states, and where the chief executive magistrate - is still to act by and with the consent of others in making
appointments, express words have been introduced authorising him to nominate as well as to appoint. If he alone nominates, still those with whom he must concur to effectuate an appointment, retain the same control over him, that he has over them; they may refuse their as. sent until he makes a nomination that pleases them, and nothing prevents their explaining to him, who would please them; Where then is this Satrap power, this Persian despotism contended for by the governor ? He only asks that equal independent authority, which he has ever been willing to concede to the council. But permit the council to complete an appointment without his assent, as they have done, and the governor is instantly reduced to a cypher. Were his oath and the constitution out of the question, no man of independent mind could submit to so degraded and humiliating a situation ; but under those sacred obligations, voluntary acquiescence is forbid by the imperative voice of duty.
To divert the public mind from a dispassionate view of such glaring absurdity and flagrant violation of the constitution, this writer has heated his own imagination and attempts to excite the sympathy of his readers, by a shapsodical display of the subversion of society, and conversion of government into the most hideous of curses, if the governor should be permitted to exercise the sole'. right of nominating, and the council to retain only the mere du. ty of putting a negative on his nomination. How unfortunate that the United States and the state of Massachusetts could not have availed themselves of the political sagacity of Republicanus, when they so imprudently and expressly confined the right of nominating to their chief magistrates, and only permitted the senate and council, (whose advice and consent they still rendered necessary in appointments,) to exercise the mere duty of confirming or negativing their nominations! Although these governments still continue blessings to the people, must we yet dread that the curses predicted by Republicanus, are accumulating with interest in the chancery of Heaven? With these examples staring him in the face, how