Mr. JOHNSON. I should like to know the reasons why the honorable member from Illinois supposes a provision of that sort is constitutional. There was a criod in the beginning of the Government when the Presidents power to remove was considered somewhat questionable. It was, however, decided by the Senate to be a clear power; and from thattime to the presentI do not know that the legality of the power has ever beenquestioned. Mr. Webster, many years ago, when there was a contest betwcen the then POTUS and the Senate a contest just as angry or just as excited as the contest which may be supposed to exist now between a majority of the Senate and the President was disposed to call in question the power of removal; but the Senate will find that, in a letter written by Mr. Madison, in the Papers we have recently published, in reply to Mr. Colcs, who had been 1is former secretary, he enters into an argument on the subject and considers it a question no longer open for controversy. The Senate were very anxious at that time to prevent, if they could do it, the power which President Jackson was from time to time exercising, but they had to abandon it. I think the Supreme Court have more than once, the question bein presented, recognized the powerto remove, an they have done it even in relation to a judicial Officer. The members of the judicial Dept of the Government provied by the constitution hold their office during good beha vior. But, notwithstanding that, the judges of territorial governments, it was held, were al wais liable to be removed by the President; an a case was brought into the Supreme Court by a judge who had been removed, claiming his salary on the ground that he could not be removed, not because there existed no power to remove in relationto others generally, but because of the particular character of his olhce; and the Supreme Court, as well as I recollect I do not speak with positive certainty on the subject decided that a judge in a Territory was not to be considered as a judge within the judicial Dept of the Government, and was therefore just as liable to be removed as any other Officer appointed under the Constitution and laws. Now, I am not sure that I exactly understand the amendment proposed by my friendfrom Illinois. He does not mean, IsuppOSe. to deny that the President has a right to remove, but he provides that if he does remove, and if the otheer whom he a points to take the place of the officer removedpgoes into office, he shall receive no compensation until his appointment shall have been confirmed by the Senate. I suppose that the time when the POTUS is to send in his limninations is a matter for himself to decide. as it is for the Senate to decide at what time they will act upon the nominations when they shall come in. Ifhe has a right to remove and he has: a right to appoint, and no Officer is to get his pay until the Senate have acted upon the nomination, when it shall act, what is to become of the interests of the countryin the interval that may pnss between the period of theremOval of the original incumbent and the confirmation of the nomi nation of his successor? Are the wheels of the Government, as far as they depend upon the filling of that office, to be arrested, to be stopped? and if they are not, is it proper to pass such an amendment as this, as the amendment will necessaril lead to that result? It cannot be suppose that a man will go into Office and remain there subject to the contingency that he may be rejected by the Senate, that no matter how long he remains during a long session he is to get nothing unless the Senate shall confirm him. I should like to hear from my friendfrom Illinois upon what grounds he supposes that the power in the 1st place exists; and 2ndly, if the power exists, upon what grounds he supposes it to be advisableto exercise the power.