Tenure of Office Act (1820)
Encyclopedia
The first Tenure of Office Act of May 15, 1820 in the United States
“imposed tenure limits on certain current and future officeholders” in order “to insure removal under certain conditions.” Authored by William H. Crawford
(Secretary of the Treasury) and introduced into the Senate by Mahlon Dickerson
of New Jersey, this law is also known as the “Four Years' Law.”
“In imposing tenure limits for incumbent officers, Congress asserted a right to remove officers,” which was ostensibly to create a “blank slate” for incoming presidents as well as to weed out poor performers with a “clean sweep." The law intervened into executive authority and acted, “in place of the previous tenure at the pleasure of the president, for district attorneys, collectors of customs, naval officers, and for surveyors of customs, money agents, receivers of public money for lands, registers of land offices, paymasters in the army, the apothecary-general, his assistant, and the commissary-general of purchases.” James Madison argued that the Four Years' Law of 1820 was unconstitutional because the four-year limit was arbitrary and thus a precedent was set in which Congress could limit office tenure to as short as a day. “As a matter of fact, however, the result of the limited
term had been to increase the power of the executive,” notes historian Carl Fish.
To help understand this irony, we can look to debates in the 1830s. On February 13, 1835, the Senate considered a bill to repeal the Four Years' Law. Senator Southard argued that “the act of May 1820, placed too much power in the hands of the president, and had accomplished none of the intentions for which it was framed.” He then explained:
Thus, the unintended consequence of the bill was to empower the executive branch to replace members of the opposing party with political partisans without going through a formal removal process. Efforts to reform this aspect of the spoils system
have been in existence since 1830 when various resolutions to reform or repeal the Tenure of Office Act (such as the one above) began to echo in congress. Nevertheless, Carl Fish notes that, with regard to this law, “Little is to be gleamed from the contemporaneous discussion. The debate in Congress, at least the report of it, is barren and there was practically no public comment.”
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
“imposed tenure limits on certain current and future officeholders” in order “to insure removal under certain conditions.” Authored by William H. Crawford
William H. Crawford
William Harris Crawford was an American politician and judge during the early 19th century. He served as United States Secretary of War from 1815 to 1816 and United States Secretary of the Treasury from 1816 to 1825, and was a candidate for President of the United States in 1824.-Political...
(Secretary of the Treasury) and introduced into the Senate by Mahlon Dickerson
Mahlon Dickerson
Mahlon Dickerson was an American judge and politician. He was elected Governor of New Jersey as well as United States Senator from that state. He was twice appointed Secretary of the Navy - under Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren...
of New Jersey, this law is also known as the “Four Years' Law.”
“In imposing tenure limits for incumbent officers, Congress asserted a right to remove officers,” which was ostensibly to create a “blank slate” for incoming presidents as well as to weed out poor performers with a “clean sweep." The law intervened into executive authority and acted, “in place of the previous tenure at the pleasure of the president, for district attorneys, collectors of customs, naval officers, and for surveyors of customs, money agents, receivers of public money for lands, registers of land offices, paymasters in the army, the apothecary-general, his assistant, and the commissary-general of purchases.” James Madison argued that the Four Years' Law of 1820 was unconstitutional because the four-year limit was arbitrary and thus a precedent was set in which Congress could limit office tenure to as short as a day. “As a matter of fact, however, the result of the limited
term had been to increase the power of the executive,” notes historian Carl Fish.
To help understand this irony, we can look to debates in the 1830s. On February 13, 1835, the Senate considered a bill to repeal the Four Years' Law. Senator Southard argued that “the act of May 1820, placed too much power in the hands of the president, and had accomplished none of the intentions for which it was framed.” He then explained:
-
- “The act required that certain officers should be appointed for the term of four years, and the intention was to bring those officers (who were disbursing officers) before the executive at the end of every four years, in order that if their official conduct had not been correct, he might, by failing to renominate, get rid of them without the formality of a removal. The object certainly was a good one, but it had tended to increase the power of the executive to an extent not anticipated at the time of the passage of the law. The law went into operation immediately preceding the presidential election, and every four years afterwards the officers appointed under it were to go out of office if not reappointed. Now, could any man not see that all these officers would feel themselves dependent on the executive, who had the power to leave them out or renominate them. The law as it stood placed every man who was not above being bribed by office in the market, feeling and acting on the principle that he was to support the man who would keep him in office. Pass the bill before the senate, and the result will be far different. Each officeholder would be independent, and would look solely to a faithful discharge of his duty for his continuance in office. As the law now stood, it was made to operate on the whole band of officers of the government, as well on the other officers as on the disbursing agents for whom it was originally intended. Each one not influenced by pure motives would say to the executive, ‘Will you retain me in office If I support you?’”
Thus, the unintended consequence of the bill was to empower the executive branch to replace members of the opposing party with political partisans without going through a formal removal process. Efforts to reform this aspect of the spoils system
Spoils system
In the politics of the United States, a spoil system is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the...
have been in existence since 1830 when various resolutions to reform or repeal the Tenure of Office Act (such as the one above) began to echo in congress. Nevertheless, Carl Fish notes that, with regard to this law, “Little is to be gleamed from the contemporaneous discussion. The debate in Congress, at least the report of it, is barren and there was practically no public comment.”