Washington and His Colleagues | Page 9

excited by the struggle over
the new Constitution were still turbulent. Fisher Ames of
Massachusetts, a member without previous national experience, who

watched the proceedings with keen observation, early noticed the
presence of a group of objectors whose motives he regarded as partly
factious and partly temperamental. Writing to a friend about the
character of the House, he remarked: "Three sorts of people are often
troublesome: the anti-federals, who alone are weak and some of them
well disposed; the dupes of local prejudices, who fear eastern influence,
monopolies, and navigation acts; and lastly the violent republicans, as
they think fit to style themselves, who are new lights in politics, who
are more solicitous to establish, or rather to expatiate upon, some
sounding principle of republicanism, than to protect property, cement
the union, and perpetuate liberty." The spirit of opposition had from the
first an experienced leader in Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. He had
seen many years of service in the Continental Congress which he first
entered in 1776. He was a delegate to the Philadelphia convention, in
whose sessions he showed a contentious temper, and in the end refused
to subscribe to the new Constitution. In the convention debates he had
strongly declared himself "against letting the heads of the departments,
particularly of finance, have anything to do with business connected
with legislation." Defeated in the convention, Gerry was now bent upon
making his ideas prevail in the organization of the government.
On May 19, the matter of the executive departments was brought up in
committee of the whole by Boudinot of New Jersey. At this time it was
the practice of Congress to take up matters first in committee of the
whole, and, after general conclusions had been reached, to appoint a
committee to prepare and bring in a bill. A warm discussion ensued on
the question whether the heads of the departments should be removable
by the President. Gerry, who did not take a prominent part in the debate,
spoke with a mildness that was in marked contrast with the excitement
shown by some of the speakers. He was in favor of supporting the
President to the utmost and of making him as responsible as possible,
but since Congress had obviously no right to confer a power not
authorized by the Constitution, and since the Constitution had
conditioned appointments on the consent of the Senate, it followed that
removals must be subject to the same condition. He spoke briefly and
only once, although the debate became long and impassioned. But he
was merely reserving his fire, as subsequent developments soon

showed. Without a call for the ayes and nays, the question was decided
in favor of declaring the power of removal to be in the President. The
committee then proceeded to the consideration of the Treasury
Department. Gerry at once made a plea for delay. "He thought they
were hurrying on business too rapidly. Gentlemen had already
committed themselves on one very important point." He "knew nothing
of the system which gentlemen proposed to adopt in arranging the
Treasury Department," but the fact was worth considering that "the late
Congress had, on long experience, thought proper to organize the
Treasury Department, in a mode different from that now proposed." He
"would be glad to know what the reasons were that would induce the
committee to adopt a different system from that which had been found
most beneficial to the United States."
What Gerry had in view was the retention of the then existing system
of Treasury management by a Board of Commissioners. In 1781 the
Continental Congress had been forced to let the Treasury pass out of its
own hands into those of a Superintendent of Finance, through sheer
inability to get any funds unless the change was made. Robert Morris,
who held the position, had resigned in January, 1783, because of the
behavior of Congress, but the attitude of the army had become so
menacing that he was implored to remain in office and attend to the
arrears of military pay. He had managed to effect a settlement, and at
length retired from office on November 1, 1784. Congress then put the
Treasury in the hands of three commissioners appointed and supervised
by it. Gerry was now striving to continue this arrangement with as little
change as possible.
When debate was resumed the next day, Gerry made a long, smooth
speech on the many superior advantages of the Board system. The
extent and variety of the functions of the office would be a trial to any
one man's integrity. "Admit these innumerable opportunities for
defrauding the revenue, without check or control, and it is next to
impossible he should remain unsullied in reputation, or innoxious with
respect to misapplying his trust." The situation would be "Very
disagreeable to the