|
|
October 9
Liber No. 78
p. 382
|
but accompanied it with an ungracious Observation, that your furn-
ishing it was to be imputed to Condescension, not a Sense of Duty.
However, the Result of the Enquiry evinced the Necessity of making
it; for it appeared you had actually fallen into the Error we appre-
hended, from whence an Argument might be deduced, that " the
Intendant's being bound by an Oath, his being obliged to give
Bond and Security for the due Execution of his Office, and his
being responsible for his Conduct, to the Legislature of a free
Republic," are not Restraints sufficient to prevent his doing very
considerable Injury to the State; for, had he gone on in the Exercise
of this Power, what might have been the Consequence? Surely
neither he nor his Friends will deny, that he had the same Right of
compounding with all the Purchasers of Confiscated Property, for
one Half of the Purchase Money, that he had to compound with
Rawlings. The same Motive which prompted the Enquiry, induced
our Interference in the other Case. We knew the Assembly had
solemnly appropriated by Act £20,000 Specifics for the Payment of
distressed Creditors and others who had advanced Money to the State
on Promises of speedy Payment. A Letter of yours was laid before
us, wherein you declared your Intention of remitting f 50,000 to
Congress, before you paid those Creditors, altho' you were sensible
the whole Specifics would not raise the Sum. This Conduct we
thought contrary to Law, a Violation of the Faith of the State, and
injurious to Individuals; and we therefore pointed out the Law to
you, and advised and required you to govern yourself by it : and altho'
you continue to deny our Right of doing this, we must do you the
Justice to confess that your Practice has not been correspondent to
your Theory, for you have given up all Idea of remitting the f 50,000
to Congress, without reserving enough to pay the Creditors, and in
no Instance since our Interference, have you refused to pay a Creditor
who came under the Act, and we trust you will not, notwithstanding
your Declarations.
Thus having stated our Motive for requiring Information from
you, and directing you in the Execution of your Duty, we will now
endeavour to convince you of our Right.
You observe there is no such Idea in our Constitution as a general
discretionary superintending Power in the Executive, where the Law
is silent. We presume to be of a different Opinion. It would be no
unreasonable Position should we assert that the very Word Executive
conveys the Idea of superintending the Execution of Laws, but there
is little Occasion to insist on this Doctrine, as we derive the Authority
in Question from that Article in the Constitution, which expressly
empowers us to suspend or remove any Civil Officer not holding a
Commission during good Behaviour. For what Purpose was the
Power given ? does it not most forcibly and necessarily imply a Right
|
|
