Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration is either useful and ought to be passed for the benefit of those who have been persecuted for the past year, or it is per nicious. If it cannot be made a useful bill by way of punishment and reproof and by way of reparation to those who for their loyalty have been persecuted, then perhaps the bill had better stand as it is. There is no probability now that the same occurrences.P. repeated. If we had passed this law 2 years ago, so as to have prevented what has already taken place, there would have beensome sense in it in a party, as well as in a political point of view. W. did not do it; we suffered the President to go on against the ordinary custom of the country and make removals for the purpose of creating a party; I say against the custom of the country, for although I recognizethe right and the propriety of an incoming Executive to change his agents so as to make all of them. conform to his views in carrying out the principles upon which he was elected, yet I do not recognize the right, after having been elected upon certain issues or principles, to take these offices and pervert them. I do not recognize his right to build up a party by corrupting those who are now in power for the purpose of destroying the very point and the very principles that elected him. say it is dishonest and corrupt, and in my judgment quite sufficient cause for impeachment. Now, sir, this bill as it stands at Present only prevents the future repetition of things of this kind; it does not restore matters to what they were, nor punish his coconspirators in this work. If you do not do this, what do you do? You confirm these very men in the office in which he has placed them. You make them profit them or some others by his acts. You punish those who were loyal to the country, and you prevent any man from ever again hoping that he will be protected by the party in power from this kind of usurpation. Now, my amendment provides that whenever the Senate shall fail to confirm the nomination, the person nominated shall hold no office under the President for the space of one year. It is so guarded that it can affect nobody except those who have been appointed since we were here before. Is not. right in 2 points of view? Is it not right as a punishment for those who have deserted their principles, their friends, and their party;.P. it not right because it Presumes that the Senate had examined them and found them unfit for office? I submit that it takes at least a year to wash clean a polluted politician, and hence that limit is small enough. Now, what objection is there to it? Some gentlemen say, “Why, can you appoint to office?” No; I am not saying we do appoint to office; but I claim that we may declare that these men have never been out of office. If you cannot declare that, your whole bill is a shameful violation of the Constitution. This bill is founded only upon the ground that the true meaning of the Constitution from the out set was that the President, of himself, had no power to create a vacancy such as the Present incumbent has been doing. If he has done it, he has done it in violation of the Constitution. If the Constitution allowed him to do it, I ask the learned Gentfrom NewYork upon what authority he is acting here? He is not, I hope, changing the Constitution by this simple act of his.