CHAPTER IX.

ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON, 1829-1887.

THE inaugural ceremonies of General Jackson, the President elect, transpired on the 4th of March, 1829. The customary address was delivered, after which the oath to support the Constitution was administered by Chief Justice Marshall.

President Jackson nominated to the Senate, an extra session of which had been called by Mr. Adams, as his cabinet officers, Martin Van Buren, of New York, as Secretary of State; S. D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the Treasury; John H. Eaton, of Tennessee, Secretary of War; John Branch, of North Carolina, Secretary of the Navy; J. McPherson Berrien, of Georgia, AttorneyGeneral. It was now determined to introduce the Postmaster-General into the Cabinet. John McLean, the incumbent of that office, was transferred to the bench of the Supreme Court, and W. T. Barry, of Kentucky, was placed at the head of the Post-Office Department. These nominations were ratified by the Senate.

The President's inaugural address contained a general exposition of his policy respecting the power of the Executive, the rights of the States, reserved and delegated, of economy in the national finances, respecting the interests of agriculture, commerce and manufactures, of internal improvements, and the general diffusion of knowledge sc

DENUNCIATION OF THE PRESIDENT.

123

far as the restrictions of the Constitution permitted. Again, he should feel constrained to inaugurate that reform so loudly demanded, "which will require, particularly, the correction of those abuses that have brought the patronage of the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have disturbed the rightful course of appointments, and have placed, or continued, power in unfaithful or incompetent hands."

OFFICIAL REMOVALS AND APPOINTMENTS.

The appointments soon developed a new rule respecting the removing and appointing power. The system hitherto pursued was set aside, and a substitute made which many were disposed to denominate that reform referred to in the inaugural, as inscribed on the list of executive duties. Where vacancies did not exist, they were made by removals. Subsequent to the adjournment of the Senate, a large number of appointments were made in all the various departments of Government. Nowhere was the exercise of executive power more sweeping than in the postal department.

Bitter complaints necessarily arose from the proscribed party, and there were not wanting those of the same po litical faith as the President who were emphatic in their denunciation of his course. The question of constitutional power was revived, and freely discussed. Admitting its constitutionality, it was held an unjustifiable exercise of power. Proscription for an honest difference of sentiment and opinion, in no way affecting faithfulness in the discharge of official duties, was inimical to freedom of opinion and political integrity. It was an emphatic denial of all former practice and antecedents.

The friends of the Executive held, on the other hand, that a proper exercise of power in the administration of the law vested the right to remove from, and appoint to office. Moreover, it was essentially fit that the political friends of the President should be associated with him in the government.

The agitation of this subject elicited information respecting appointments of former administrations.

In

During General Washington's term of office there were nine removals; of these one was a defaulter. John Adams' administration of four years, there were ten removals; one of these was a defaulter. In Jefferson's, of eight years, there were thirty-nine. In James Madison's, of eight years, there were five removals, of which three were defaulters. In James Monroe's, of eight years, there were nine removals, of which six were for cause. In J. Q. Adams', of four years, there were two removals, both for cause. Total removals by the six Presidents, seventy-four. The number of appointments made by General Jackson during the first recess of the Senate was one hundred and seventy-six, principally in consequence of removals of political opponents from office. In answer to a resolution of the Senate, the Postmaster-General reported that, between the 4th of March, 1829, and the 22d of March, 1830, four hundred and ninety-one postmasters had been removed.

Respecting the removal of postmasters; Mr. Niles, a distinguished political writer of that day-a friend of the Administration, says: "Political considerations, except those of the broadest and most noble nature (in the spread of intelligence) never entered into the institution of the post-office department. It becomes contaminated when reduced to the dominion of party, and confidence, once lost, is slowly regained. Deeply interested in the

REMOVAL OF POSTMASTERS.

125

business of the post-office establishment, and knowing the effect that must follow a loss of confidence in its management, we were exceedingly anxious that honest and capable, industrious, and obliging postmasters should not be dismissed for opinion's sake. If there were abuses of the privileges allowed to postmasters, on the one side, they were not wanting on the other. What was improper in one party cannot have been right in its opponent. And there is also this important difference; not one of the postmasters recently in office had been appointed to supersede another because of political opinion, so far as we ever heard; and even if it had been so, it was to have been expected that these were rather against than favorable to the last Administration-Mr. McLean being understood as a decided friend of the election of Gen. Jackson. Yet we do not believe he suffered his private feelings to enter into the performance of his public duties. But now persons are dismissed without the preferring of charges against them affecting their moral character or personal standing."

It is not our province to depart from history to the discussion of principles, but no reflecting mind can but regard the sweeping changes which accompany every revolution in national politics as most pernicious, and largely destructive of the best interests of the country. Not only this, but its tendency to political and governmental corruption is as sure as it is rapid. Instead of a general election being a contest for principle, it is rendered a scramble for office.

In addition to the displeasure created by Gen. Jackson in his general removals from office, he was censured for his extensive executive patronage of members of Congress-a practice which, in a letter to the Legislature of Tennessee, he declared to tend inevitably to corruption.

A call growing out of the dissatisfaction with the appointment of members of Congress to office by the Presi dent, was made upon Mr. Adams, inquiring as to the extent to which this practice had been carried. The list of each administration contained those appointed during its existence, and for six months subsequent to its expira tion. The whole number which had been appointed was 117, as follows: Appointed by Washington, 10; by John Adams, 13; by Jefferson, 25; by Madison, 29; by Monroe, 35; by John Q. Adams, in thirteen months, to the time of the report, 5. During the first three months, the number appointed by Gen. Jackson was 12.

The consideration of these topics tended greatly to irritate the public mind, and hasten the formation of parties and party distinctions.

REVIVAL OF PARTIES.

The terms "Federalists" and "Democrats" became almost obsolete under the policy so successfully commenced by President Monroe; and that too with the advice of Gen. Jackson, who, in his famous letter to Mr. Monroe in 1816, not only earnestly advised him to "destroy the monster Party," urging that the "Chief Magistrate should never indulge in party feelings," but recommended the appointment of well-known and distinguished Federalists to high and honorable offices. Yet now, by a strange revolution, those party names were revived with bitterness unparalleled save, perhaps, in the contest of 1798-'9. At that period parties were less distantly separated in principle than the masses who constituted them believed. Ultras there were in each party. Yet for "party's sake" the leaders must be sustained. That party differences were more imaginary than real, we have the expression