Mr. HOWE. I shall not reroduce the de bate. There was a bill pening before the Congress of the U.S. to create the Dept of Foreign Affairs, now the Dept of State. That proposed to make the head of the Dept removable at the pleasure of the President. That was supposed to raise the question of the Presidents power to remove officers, and it led to a len by debate in the Administration of Genera Washington, the 1st POTUS The decision was that the bill should pass, not withstandin thoseterms. The argument which supported the bill did insist upon the right of the resident to remove officers generally, and that the power of removal was in the President. But, sir, after all, I think anyone who reads that debate, I think it has been the judgment of American statesmen generally since l am not about to sum up their opinions, but I think it is the judgment of American statesmen who have considered the subject since the date of that debate that the weight of the orment, that the reason of the thing, was on the side of those who denied this right of removal; and we cannot fail to know that the mere circumstance that the executive office was then in the hands of General Washington must have in fluenced the result of that debate very ina terially. I do not know that the 1st President lnid claim to any such power; but we all know that it was not the habit of the American people at that time to wait for him to lay claim to honors or to powers. They thrust honors upon him; and if he had laid claim to the shirt of every one of the men who voted to concede him this power of removal, I do not doubt that every one of them would have stamped Washingtons name on their garments in a moment. lhey were not in a mood to deny anything that he asked for himself, or that was asked in his behalf. That was the decision, though made at that time and upon that bill to create the Dept of State. Since that the subject has conunder debate. In 1820 an act was passed entitled “An act to limit the term of office of certain otheers therein named, and for other purposes;” the 1st section of which is in these words: “.80 it enactedby the Senule and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled, but from and after the passing of this not all district attorneys, collectors of the customs, nnvnl officers and surveyorsof the customs, nuval agents, receivers of public moneysfor lands. registers of the land offices, pnymastersin the Army, the npo the cary general, the asst npo the carics General and the commissnrygeneralof purchases.to be appointed under the laws of the U.S., shall be appointed for the term of 4 years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure." That is the 1st section of the act, and it is all I care to read. Why did the Congress of the U.S. attempt to fix the tenure of these officers? Clearly because they thought they had the power to do it. Wli did they, in the same act, confer upon the resident the right to remove these officers, any of them, during this term? Clearly because they thought the President ought to have the right and had it not. There can be no plainer declaration of the opinion of Congress that the Constitution. does not confer this right upon the President than this attempt of theirs to give it to him; and here it is, in so many words. This act passed, it seems, without attracting any debate, without any controversy; but it was iiotiicqui ese ed in for a long time without controversy. In lhLlLain attempt was made to repeal the 1st section of the act, and the 2nd section, which I did not read; and a bill was introduced into the Senate of the U.S. for that purpose. It was subjected to ii.debate, and a pretty thorough debate, which I do not propose to read even an extract from; butimust callthe attention of the Senate to the vote upon the passage of that bill. It was a bill to repeal this section of the act of 1820, which conferred upon the POTUS the right to remove these officers during the continuance of their term; and upon the nssage of that hill the ycas were Mcssm. Bel, Benton, Bibi), Black, Calhoun, Clny, Clayton, Ewing, Ffeling liuysen, Goldsborough, Kent, King of Georgia, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, PoINDEXter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rob bins, Silsbee. Smith, Southard, Swift, Tomlin son, Tyler, Wagerman, Webster, and White 31, including, is it too much to say, not merely the nblest men of that time, but some who have been ranked among the ublest of nny time, either in this country or elsewhere. In the negative are recorded the names of Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King of Alabama, Knight, Linn, Morris, Rob inson, Ruggles, Shepley, lallmadgc, Tipton, and Wright 16. The vote is almost 2 to one in number, denying this right of removal to the President, and in weight of character, force of intellect, ability to comprehend l was goin to as something strong, but I am admenishe by a look of my friend over the way, [Mr. Moa iiii.i.] and I will simply say quite 2 to one. Mr. President, in the face of such a vote as that so recent as 1835, had, with full review of the debate in 1789, which it is asserted here settled the whole question, I do not think it is fair or safe to say that this right in the President is a matter of fixed and established construction. Being firmly convinced myself that the Constitution does not confer any such power upon the President, that it was never meant to confer any such power upon the President, that it is a power which e does not need, which he ought not to have, and which no one man can be intrusted with with safety to the public service, I have watched this debate and I shall look for the vote upon the amendment with as much interest as I have attended upon any debate which has taken place and any vote which has been given in this Chamber. I concede the right of the Legislature to vest this power in the President if they see fit, but I want the Legislature to understand that if hereafter be exercises the power it is not his fault; it is the fault of the legislature. He will exercise it if you permit hiin, beyond all question. I would if I were in his place. How he will employ it, to what end he will employ it, it is not for me to say, not for us to anticipate. If on want the president to he clothed with this power, and to have the disbursement of these millions, say so; take the consequences; be manly about it; but do not let us refuse to pay an Officer that we authorize him to appoint. But we are asked, what good will it do us to pass this amendment? What is the object? Vhnt is the inducement? I will tell ou one good that will come of it, I think. I hiid in a recent papera dispatch like this sent out from th“is city: Within a few days past a great change is notice able in the matter of executive n pointments. The President seems to have realized that longer forbearance with the enemiesof his Administration and its measures was working rank injustice to his friends, and to have realized the potency of the old party maxim. that; to the victors belong the spoils. As a consettienoe, the radicals who mustered edrontery eiioug to call tmop the President and solicit apointments for eir friends. received little reward or their labors, and wrote treated to a plain exposition laon fghuiasginetednetciios nivsefoarntdhoufnumtuirset.ak Thbeley. wthearet to hlids friends should have the preference, and that no known enemyof the Administration policy should receive the qnnn endorsement of a Federal appointment. In addition to this, the in has actual been set to work, and deenpitations are now of daily Occurrence. Its effectsare alread visiblo in the altered and respectful deportment o more than one radical opponent in both runch coongress." Thank God, I am no radical! It does not refer to me. “ Herctoforc, when the Presidents Private Secretary was sent to the Capital on ofilcial business.he was receivedwith a haughty frigidity that was absolutely insulting. Within afow do u all havebecome anxious to do him reverence. l c is metwith the blnudest of smiles, and surrounded by crowds who protest against any rupture of the friendly relations that should exist between the President and congress, and who vio with each other in bestowing attentions. Ultering 1 pretty speeches, and deprecating the idea that t oyare or ever were in hostility to the Executive. But the work will go on. No one will be deceived by hollow pretenses, Those othee holders who have abused their positions to vilify the President and disrupt the Republican party Will, be made to 1p way to better man. The are manifestation of this resolve has already half accomplished ts purpose.” So it is written. What good will it do to adopt this amendment? it is asked. Why, sir, it Will satisfy the country that this work is only half done; at least that we are not more than halfsubdued to what is called the Presidents policy; that something remains yet to be done. t will do something to convince the country that there is a little of the spirit which should imbue an American Congress left still here in these Houses, which are daily visited by the messenger from the President; that although polite,as I am glad to learn we habitually are, we are not entirely subservient and obsequious, nor slavish. It will do something to satisf the country that the revenues which the peopleare yielding up with a most prodigal hand to meet the demands, and the just demands, of the nation, are appropriated in accordance with the bestinterests oitbe people, and to promote the great ends which induced them to yield them. Mr. President, there is a feature in this dispatch that I think demands especial notice. We are informed in it that “ The President seemsto haverealized that.longer forbearancewith the enemiesof his Adininistranon and its measureswas working rank injustice to his friends and to have realized the potencyof theold party maxim. that to the victorsbelong the spoils!" We are subsequently told that the ox is in motion. The ax is in motion for what? To bow down and appropriate the spoils to the victors? Who are those victors that are gath ering in the spoils, and when and wheredid they achieve their victory? These questions ought to be answered. 1 cannot answer them. 1 know of no victory that the lrcsnlent of the U.S. has achieved since 1864, when the loyal hearts and the loyal hands of the U.S. elevated him to the 2nd offiec in the gift of the American people. If he has achieved a victory since then I have omitted to read of it in the papers, and l have not been informed of it in any way. Who were those yic tors that achieved that victory? I had aslight hand in it myself, and all my heart was in it. I thought I was triumphant, iiud that the nation was, when the choice fell on AndrewJohnson instead of Mr. George leiiilleton of Ohio. When and how was this victory, which I thoughtl could safely bug to myself, changed into a defeat? I have not changed it, norcou seiited to the change of it, nor have I appointed the time when 1 shall consent to the change of it. If spoils belong to the victors, 1 really submit that to the Union party, who have achieved all the victories that have been achieved at all, whether in the forum or on the held, since 1800, ought to have some share in these spoils. think, Mr. President, much good, great good every way, will come of the adoption of this amendment. You will improve the character of the public serVice. The great, the leading, the most delicate trusts which your different statutes have created to be executed by these officers will then be in honorable and honest and brave hands, and they will feel that they are secure in the possession of those trusts. Retuse this and you Will see every one of them scrambled for, gambled for by a class of men that I will not attemptto describe, for the English language is not yet quite on i ous and rich enough to describe iliein aile qunicly, but let the prevailing system of polities continue for 20 years and you can get out of our lexicographies a better description of them than ever was found of any natural curiosity yet in human Ian age. Much good every way wifiucome of the adoption of this amendment. In addition to secur in more faithful service in these offices, you will satisfy the country that you have got a Legislature which does not get down on its knees when a message is received from the White House, which does not take its gospel from the POTUS, which does not vote the money of the people according to his dictation, but a Legislature which listens to the people that created it, takes its gospel from them, from them gets instruction, to them holds itself responsible, and to their will is now and hereafter always amenable. This will be gained, I think, by adopting this amendment. But, says the Senfrom Maryland, it will not do to urge this thing; it will not do to press it now; we must have peace; we are confronting critical times; the SecyState has written a letter to some one of our foreign ministers, and it looks as though we might have a fight; we are in danger of war; we must have peace at home; this division between the President and Congress mustter minate. God hurry on that day; I am as heart iIy anxious to see it as any man; but how shall we bring it about? There is no man I know to whom peace seems more desirable than to me, but how shall we get it? How is it to be attained? Is it onlyfound at the White House, and delivered in small packa es done u to order and obtained by the congress of the U.S. upon the personal application of its different members? Is that the only way we can get peace 2 Well, I guess we had better go without it a short time longer. Is it only to be obtained by our surrendering the most manifest terms of the Constitution and surrendering the dearest interests of the American people? Is peace only to be had upon such terms as these? I guess it would be too expensive. We declined peace in 1861 upon these terms. We might have had it then precisely upon these terms. If we would have surrendered the expressed will of the Amercan people, abandoned their choice, subjected them to the dictates of those men who said there should be no peace until we did that, we might have had peace. You can always haveence if you will not resist what an body will. If all wrong and outr e and injury be accepted as readily and as cieerfully and as politely and as courteously us right and justice you can have peace. Let a man cuff you and take it good uaturedly without contest or strug gle, peace remains. Turn the other check as a reply to being smote upon the one, and you can have peace upon those terms. But, sir. the trouble was that the American people had not quite made up their minds to take peace upon those terms. They thought that under this organic law they were made the arbiters in American affairs. They thought they had the right to send representatives here, each State to send 2 to this Chamber, and every district in each State to send one to the other Chamber; and when they had them here, they thought they had a right to be obeyed by them. T cy thoughtthey adtherighttosend them here, a right conceded in this instrument conceded, no; that is not the word I mean to use secured to them in this instrument to send men here, to do what? Their own pleasure? The pleasure of the President? No, no; the pleasure of the men who sent them here, to execute the will of their constituents. That is what they thought. They have been cheated into that idea, and they are not willin to give it up; and I think for the present we adbetter indulge them in this idea, even if it be a fallacy. The time is coming, Mr. President, as sure as you live, when it will not be a fallacy; when it will be a reality. The time is coming when these people who have under this instrument the right to send representatives here will see to it that the representatives do their will and not the will of the President. Notwithstanding I am as anxious as the Senfrom Maryland to have peace, I do not See the way to it as he directs; but I know a way to it; I know a way to peace. Let the POTUS recognize this body I do not mean this Senate, but these 2 Houses as the lawmaking power, and let us recognize in him the Executive of the U.S. Then we can have peace. If he does not discharge his duty exactly as we like, we will not undertake to interfere with him if he will let us discharge our duties as we understand the people who sent us here require of us. Then I think there is room enoug in the the U.S. for both the President and the Congress to exist and to breathe. Sir, I cannotlook back to see precisely how I have expressed myself. lfI have uttered a sentence or a word which looked like u.complaint of the President for exercising the power of removal, I have been a little misunderstood. I do not want nnythingI have said to be interpreted in that way. I am not the man to complain or to whine because the President does what the law lets him do. I said once, I think, and if I have not said it, I say it now, that if I were there I would do the same thing. I would have my friends in these offices if you would lit me have them there and pay them for being t cre. I am told the President is afflicted with an idea. I know what that disease is. I had one myself once. I suppose he believes in it. I can understand that the more readily because I am in the habit of believing in my own ideas. I suppose he wants the American people to accept it. That is natural. If he honestly believes in it, he ought to desire them to accept it; but I want the American people to accept my idea. No, I do not exactly ask them to accept it they have got it bad, and I want them simply to hold on to it, and I do not want them to be dragooned into letting it go. But I am not finding fault with the president for doing anyone thing that you let him do, that the law permits him to do, in orderto induce the American people to ucce thisidea. He himselfwas once, not a Presi cut, but a legislator. He himself seems to have, on one occasion at least, and I think on many, devel oped a very accurate and a very creditable i ea of the duties of a representative. On the 19th of Decembr, 1860, talking in this Chamber to the American Senate, prescribing their duty to that party who had not been victorious in the election of 1860, but had been defeated, and the party to which he then belonged, he reminde them what they could do and what they ought to do. He reminded them that Mr. Lincoln had been elected according to the Constitution and according to law, and said: “I am for abiding by the Constitution, and in abiding by iIt want to maintain and retain my place ore and put down Mr. Lincoln and drive bflt his advancesupon southerninstitutions, ifbe designsto make any. Have we not gotthe brakesin our hands? Have we not got the power? We have. Lrt SCarolina send her Senatorsback; let all the Senators come; and on the 4th of March next we shall have a majorityof six in this body against him. This successful sectionalenndidntc. who is in a minority of a million, or nearly so. on the po ulnr vote. cannot make his Cabinet on the 4th of arch next unless this Senate will permit him." That is a clause which I think has ese aped the attention of the honerable Senfrom Maryland. There is one statesman who certain y thought the Senate had something to say about advising the appointment of a Cabinet minister. “Am I to be so great a coward as to retreat from duty? I will stand herennd meetthe eneroachments upon the institutions of my country at the threshold; and as a man asone that loves my country and my constituentsdwill stand liere and resist nlleneroneh menu and advances. More is the place to stand. Shall I desertthe citadel, and let the enemycomein and take pomession? No. Can Mr. Lincoln senda foreign minister or even a consul abroad unlesshe receives the sanction of the Senate? Can he a ipoiut a postmaster whose salary is over a 1,000 dollars a your without the consent of the Senate? Shall we desert our posts. shrink from Olllre.“llpll$llplllll0S and permit Mr. Lincoln to coinc with his cohorts. as we consider them, from the North to carry off every thing? Are We so cowardly that now that we are defeated, not conquered.we shall do this? Yes, we are defeated according to the forms of law and the Constitution; but the real victory is ours; the moral force is with us." That is the way your President talked when he was a Senator. Do you suppose that he who then knew so well what belonged to the character of an American Senator has forgotte: it now? Does he not remind us tu dny of the duty that devolves upon us? Do you think he was prepared to cover With smiles and bland ishmeuts a messenger fro m Mr. Lincoln in those times, if he had been President, or that he will entertain any very hearty and cordial respect for us if we do the like to his messengers? I think not. I would rather take the advice found here in the language of the president himself as a guide in discharging the duties of a Senator on this floor, nud in this emergency, than to follow the suggesuons so ersuasively urged upon us yesterday by the Senfrom Maryland. Mr. President, I had no idea of occupying so much time when I rose. I want the Senate to adopt this amendment. I think the Senate had better adopt it as it stands. I do not care to deny to the President the right to remove officers for cause, but if the Senate sees fit to r deny that, I acquiese e. The effect ofihis last provision is Simply to leave that power of removal for cause in his hands and to deny him the right to make removals for any other reason. But either the part or the whole of this amendment, I ask the Senate, out of respect for itself, out of its respect for the country, out of its regard for duty, and above all, out of regard to the true meaning of the Constitution of the U.S. which each of us has sworn to an ort and defend, to adopt.