Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to enter my dissent to one doctrine of my honorable friendfrom Pennsylvania; and that is, that this is a contract that we cannot violate. The Senate has no power over the appointments to office except to confirm or reject them; the appomting power is with the resident. But it is very right and very proper that, in a case that justifies it, Congress should exercise the power that it has, and that is, when a public officer is obnoxious, and Congress is satisfied that retaining him in his place is injurious to the public interest or the public honor, it should exercise the power it has and refuse to appropriate for the payment of his salary, whatever it may be. but is a power that congress possesses, and in a.proper case it is perfectly right for it to exercise it. It is a chec that it has, that the Constitution intended it should have, and it is no violation of contract, because the otiicc terminates when any branch that has power over it sees fit to determine it. In saying this, I do not wish to be under stood as saying that this is a proper case for the exercise of that power. It may or it may not be. I have expressed my opinion already that I would not have taken this notice of this gentleman. I think it is undignified and not creditable in point of fact that it should be so; and I regret that it should have been introduced into the appropriation bill. I think it would have been better to have passed it by with the notice that was taken of it before. That is my opinion about it; but still I remain of the opinion that I expressed, that it is not worth while to lose the appropriation bill upon it, if such is the temper of the House. I wish also to make one remark, that I do not suppose will do any good upon this idea that has grown u that either House has a right to lose a bill in the great number of appropriation bills that are passed. By the constitution of these bodies, it takes the 2 branches to pass any appropriation or to pass any law, or any clause of a law; and I do not think that either House has a right to demand of the other that it shall accede to one particular proposition out of 100or that all shall e lost. No one branch has a right to say to the other, “We insist that we will pass this particular clause, whatever' it is, an if it is not passed, all shall go by the board.” That is just committing the legislation of Congress to one branch. That becomes a law which both Houses agree to and the President approves. But if it so ha pens that a particular clause cannot be agree to in both ranches, my judgment always has been that it ought to be abandoned by the branch which proposes it, because it takes both branches to make a law. But, nevertheless, a different practice has grown up, and one branch or the otherI do not say one any more than the other is sometimes, for the sake of savin a bill, compelled to yield its opinions. I 0 not think that is correct in point of fact; but still, it so happens that it is so. I hope it will be corrected at some time or other.