not be responsible to him for the faithful performance of his duties.
The legislative power may undoubtedly bind him and the President by any
laws they may think proper to enact; they may prescribe in what place
particular portions of the public property shall be kept and for what
reason it shall be removed, as they may direct that supplies for the
Army or Navy shall be kept in particular stores, and it will be the duty
of the President to see that the law is faithfully executed; yet will
the custody remain in the executive department of the Government. Were
the Congress to assume, with or without a legislative act, the power of
appointing officers, independently of the President, to take the charge
and custody of the public property contained in the military and naval
arsenals, magazines, and storehouses, it is believed that such an act
would be regarded by all as a palpable usurpation of executive power,
subversive of the form as well as the fundamental principles of our
Government. But where is the difference in principle whether the public
property be in the form of arms, munitions of war, and supplies or in
gold and silver or bank notes? None can be perceived; none is believed
to exist. Congress can not, therefore, take out of the hands of the
executive department the custody of the public property or money without
an assumption of executive power and a subversion of the first
principles of the Constitution.

The Congress of the United States have never passed an act imperatively
directing that the public moneys shall be kept in any particular place
or places. From the origin of the Government to the year 1816 the
statute book was wholly silent on the subject. In 1789 a Treasurer was
created, subordinate to the Secretary of the Treasury, and through him
to the President. He was required to give bond safely to keep and
faithfully to disburse the public moneys, without any direction as to
the manner or places in which they should be kept. By reference to the