Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, from my youth up I have looked to the Senate of the U.S. as a body so elevated, so far removed from the prejudices and passions of the times, that no injustice whatever would be done in its action. I have been surprised during the course of this debate to hear what I have regarded as most unjust accusations against the POTUS, and none perhaps so marked as that of the Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER] When discussing this bill the other day that Senator felt himself authorized to say after quoting the line “New actions teach new duties:” “We have a new occasion, now teaching a duty. new That new occasion is the misconduct of the Executive of the U.S., and the new duty which this occasion teaches is that Congress should xercise all its powers in throwing a shield over our fellow citizens. We seethat the Executive is deter mined to continue this warfare upon the incumbents of office: shall we not if possible F. them? I say that it is our duty growing out of this hour.” The misconduct of the Executive throws upon Congress new duties, is the burden of the argument of the Senfrom Massachu. setts; and what is that “misconduct?” Not the disregard of any obligation that the constitution throws upon him, not the violation of any law, except in 2 particular instances to which he did not refer, but the violation of duty on the part of the President to which he refers is the exercise on his part of a constitutional power which has been recognized from the very 1st session of the Congress of the U.S. the exercise of his power of removal from office and the appointment of other men. Mr. President, I have never sympathized with the general removal from office. I have never seen a faithful officer removed that I have not sympathized with him except in cases where according to our doctrine of rotation in office that party had held the office, as we understand, long enough. But what is this doctrine of the Senfrom Massachusetts? Is it the English doctrine, a doctrine, however, which has been repudiated in the English courts, that a man shall have a right in his office as against everybody else, to hold it as against the party or power in the Government that confers it? Is it the doctrine that because a man is once in office he shall continue in office? I recognize the full force of the argument in favor of the incumbent where he has done his duty. But if he has done his duty, after he has held the office a reasonable length of time, I think he does not have a claim above everybody else in the country. But what is this charge that the Senator brings against the President? It has been brought down to an exact statement by the Senfrom Pennsylvania: out of all the civil officers of the country under his control he has removed one man out of 6; he has called into office of the men that sympathized with him in what he regards to be the proper policy one man out of 6, leaving 5 office holders out of 6 against him. And this is charged against him as an outrage and a wrong by a Senator who uniformly supported the policy of Mr. Lincoln. Is it not known to every Senator that in 1861 there was a proscription because of opinion more sweeping and terrible than had ever been known in the country? Until 1861, when was it ever held that every man must be turned out of office who did not agree with the party in power? Scarcely a man was left in office in 1861 to represent the sentiments of the large minority in the country. I bring this up as no accusation against Mr. Lincoln's adminis. tration. I did not claim that the men who voted against him ought to be kept in office, and I conceded his right to call into the executive offices men who sympathized sincerely with him in his political views, that he should have confidence not only in his Secretaries but in every executive officer who was to aid him in the execution of the laws; and I never charged him with a wrong because he left no Democrats in office. When the Democrats were beaten in 1860 and the Republican party was successful I thought it right ofor Mr. Lincoln to call men to him and to his support in all the offices of the country men who truly sympathized with him in. his political views he should have confidence in all from the highest to the lowest; and I never thought of charging it as an outrage by him, and as a reason why by legislation the whole policy of the Government should be changed in that regard. o The proscription since 1861 has been surpassing anything ever observed before. It has not only extended to the high offices of the country, but to the smaller officers; until it has gone into the courts, and for the past 5 years in the Federal courts, where the marshal and the clerk control the subject, you would scarcely see a juror called into the box or placed upon the grand jury who did not agree in political opinion with the party in power. The proscription has gone into the courts, and juries have been organized upon political principles. The men called into the grand jury room to inquire of the violation of law, and who ought to be free from partisan feelings, have been selected with a view to their ". politics. I have thought that a wrong. have felt, as a practitioner of the law, that party polities ought never to find its wayinto the court. Stopping short of that and leavi it to be felt only in the executive offices, have no charge to make against the late Administration. But the gentlemen who supported that Administration in this proscriptive lo certainly are not justified in saying that Mr. JOHNson, the present Chief Magistrate, is chargeable with wrong if he calls his friends into one 6th of the public offices. But, sir, is the Senate of the U.S. the place in which to make the charge of F.? Of all the employees of thisbody know of but one man who sympathizes with the conservative sentiment of the country; and on the 1st or 2nd day of the session, because of political party views, 3 of the distinguished chiefs or heads of committees were stricken from their places and assigned to the foot of the committees. I should. no criticism to make upon that if those committees were in charge of matters relating to the political questions of the day; but they had no reference to such questions. The 3 committees to which I refer have no charge of any question that now agitates the country or divides Congress and the President; but simply because brother Senators differ upon a political question the majority of the Senate proscribe them, and in the middle of a congress assign them from the head of a committee to the foot of it. And yet Senators saythat it is an outrage to proscribe men because of political opinions. Why, sir, in this very city, under the eye of the President, nearly all the offices arefilled by men that oppose him. The postmaster in this city is understood to be one of the leaders of the opposition to the President and of the ad. herents of Congress. The collecting officer in this District is another instance; and of all the clerks in the Depts my information is that there is not perhaps one out of ten that supports the POTUS And yet he is charged with proscription; hei: charged with doing a wrong, because some of the officers of the country have been removed and men sympathizing with his policy have been placed in their stead. know very well the argument which 1S used; that Mr. Johnson has proscribed men who belong to the party that put him in powe: Well, sir, who have been appointed in their places as a general thing? Not Democrats, not men who opposed the Lincoln and Johnson ticket in is34; but, as a general thing the men who have been appointed by his Administration are men who voted for Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson in 1864; and in removing one man and putting in another” President has simply sefected among themen who supported him in the contest of. And is it wholly unreasonable that he should make such a selection? Have questions.” come up since 1864 that did not enter " the contest of that year? Did the question that now divides Congress and the President." enter into the contest of 1864, and was. i. Johnson elected upon that question? Isubmi to the candid judgment of every i. whether the question that divides youfrom."; President formed an issue in the o: 1864? It did not. Since Mr. Johnson's".tion, and since he has come to be POTUS, a question has, oio s cause of the close of the war, and that?"tion is in what modeshall the States beo to all their proper relations to the Government. ident of Upon that great question the pres". the U.S. has assumed hi Congress has assumed an opposite gro". here is a difference, a difference up?" m.tion that has arisen since the P. into power, an unexpected difference of opinion. Undoubtedly his views areo tertained by him; and soon the other the views of the majority of Congress honestly entertained by them. That question having arisen, and the POTUS being charged with the duty to see that the laws are executed, are you willing to deny to him that which you have claimed for every Administration that went before him the right to put into the public offices of the country men who sympathize with him and in whom he can have entire confidence? It is charged now as a wrong that he removes one Republican from office and puts another one in. I do not say that this is the case in all instances, for there are instances of appointments to office of men who opposed his election in 1864; but they are very few compared with the so. that have been made. The great body of appointments that have been made are of men who supported the Lincoln and Johnson ticket in 1864. Then, sir, this bill proposes to deny to Mr. Johnson as POTUS that which has been conceded to every President that went before him, to place in the offices of the country, to aid him in the execution of the laws, men who sympathize with him in his views. A very significant question was asked by the Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. CowAN] yesterday, To whom do the offices belong? He an swered it well in saying they belong to the law. The man that is appointed is appointed simply to execute the law, to discharge his duty under the law. The office does not belong to him except for the time 3.which he holds it: he has no patent by which he can hold it beyond the will of the power that conferred it. But suppose the propositions of Senators be correct, that the offices belong to the people, is there nothing, then, due to the large minority in this country? At the recent elections, in October and November last, 180,000 voters of this country indorsed the policy of the President; about 220,000 indorsed the policy of Congress. Out of the 4 million voters casting their votes 1800,000 men at the olls said they believed the President was right. o Senators say that those 1800,000 men, representing 9 million of the people of this country outside of the seceding States do Senators say that that large portion of our population have no rights in the offices of the country; that it is a wrong, for which the President shall be arraigned before the judgment of the country if he does not leave all the offices in the hands of men who oppose his views?. The President has thus far not asked to aid him in the execution of the laws a proportion of the officers of the country equal to the popular vote in his favor. He has asked for but one 6th; while of the voters of the country there is nearly 1/2 who sustain him. In the great States of NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, giving a popular vote of about 1,044,000 votes cover the majority. A change of 44,000 in the enormous vote of these 3 great States would have thrown them in favor of the President 3 States that give about 72 electoral votes. And yet Senators say that if the POTUS respects, in the little matter of appointments to office, this enormous sentiment of the country, he is to be charged with a wrong.