Summary

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Parsons v. United States — Opinion of the Court

No one denied the power of the president and senate, jointly, to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the constitution, which was a full recognition of the principle that the power of removal was incident to the power of appointment. But it was very early adopted, as the practical construction of the constitution, that this power was vested in the president alone.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Parsons v. United States — Opinion of the Court

In 1851, Attorney General Crittenden, in a written opinion delivered to the president of the United States, stated that the president was not only invested with authority to remove the chief justice of the territory of Minnesota from office, but that it was his duty to do so if it appeared that he was incompetent and unfit for the place.
Source: Wikisource

Rufus Wheeler Peckham Parsons v. United States — Opinion of the Court

If it were to be construed in accordance with the claim of appellant, the further question would then arise whether a statute which fixed a term of office for a district attorney, during the running of which neither the president, nor the president and senate, by the appointment of a successor, should have power to remove the incumbent from office would be constitutional.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature