The power of removal, where no express provision existed, was, he said, in the nature of things, incidental to that of appointment.

And as the senate was, by the constitution, associated with the President in making appointments, that body must, in the same degree, participate in the power of removing from office.
[Footnote 42: This has since been denominated the department of state.] Mr.White was supported by Mr.Smith of South Carolina, Mr.Page, Mr.
Stone, and Mr.Jackson.
Those gentlemen contended that the clause was either unnecessary or improper.

If the constitution gave the power to the President, a repetition of the grant in an act of congress was nugatory: if the constitution did not give it, the attempt to confer it by law was improper.

If it belonged conjointly to the President and senate, the house of representatives should not attempt to abridge the constitutional prerogative of the other branch of the legislature.
However this might be, they were clearly of opinion that it was not placed in the President alone.

In the power over all the executive officers which the bill proposed to confer upon the President, the most alarming dangers to liberty were perceived.