Mr. JOHNSONF 13 Peters, page 259; and from that time to this I am sure I can say with truth that I speak knowingly no judge of the Supreme Court has ever questions the power of the President to remove, although the appointment is made by and with the advice and conseut of the Senate. My honorable friendfrom Ohio has said that it never could be in any state of excitement the design of Congress.fi) deny his right to remove his Cabinet officers; ind yet it is in the power of Congress to repeal all the laws by which those officers are appointed. Cabinet officers are notprovided forin the constitution. His authority over them is derived from that part of the Constitution which says that he shall have the authority to appoint all the officers particularly named, and all Officers the appointment of whom is vested in the President and the Senate. Congress may, therefore, repeal those laws and leave no Cabinet Officers at all, and the President will have to actupon his own judgment; but the good sense and patriotism of the men of 178.)showed how important. it was that the President should have official advisers, and they therefore provided that the heads of these several Depts should be what is termed the Cabinet of the President; and in all the laws providing for the appointment of those officers it is assumed that the power of removal shall remain in the President. i Now, my friend has said that we can provide against any removal by the President of postmasters and collectors of the revenue. That is all true. We may by law give to the President the power to appoint those officers and deny to him the power to remove them. We may give to the SecyTreasury the like power and deny to him the power to remove them: but I am sure no Senator would be willing to say that the power of removal, in cases of that description, should not be vested some where; and the question, therefore, which would present itself, it such a measure was proposed to the Senate, would be, where will you vest it? Will you vest it in the POTUS? If not, will you vest it in the Secretaries? It must be vested somewhere, or we must run the risk of having dishonest or incapable officers in the several Depts of the Government. lfyou vest it in a Secretary, the President can remove the Secretary, and appoint one who will suit him better, and thus effect the some object. I agree with the honorable member that it is advisable that the patronage of the Government should not be used for political purposes. In the beginning of the Government, and in the debates in 1789, which led to the determi nation of Congress that the power to remove was in the President, it was stated and it is so stated, I think, in one of the numbers of the Federalist, that the exercise of that power, without cause, would be a good reason for impeachment. But it has long been the practice What is the Senator of the Government to remove without assign in any cause; and it has now become, as I think, the settled construction of the Constitution, that so far as relates to appointments which you have given to the President, although they are to be made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, he has a right to remove, and has aright to fill the places made vacant by removal, provided the removal is made during the recess of the Senate.