Mr. MCDOUGAIib. Mr. President, I do not rise with the hope that I can add to the information of Senators on this subject. I cannot make the comlement to the argument of the Senfrom Vermont for the reason of its exceeding fullness; I cannot add to the learning thathasbeen bestowed; but I chooseto state my particular objections in my own way, briefly. In the 1st place the amendment, the subject reperly of discussion, is not germane to the bill and thei rule has been, and it is a good rule, that an appropriation bill should not be charged with extraneous matter. I have heard it maintained very earnestly always by the Senfrom Ohio, who has been chair man of the ComWays&Means of the other House, and now represents the ComFinance, I believe. It is abad prac tice, against sound policy; but that is not my gravest objection. The most difficult subject that was before the men who sat in council in 1787 was how to balance the powers of the Government, and those wise men. our ancestry, wiser than we, drew from the wells of old an tiquity, they drew from the modern ages and particularly the problem Was how to balance the various powers of Government and they designed as a policy that the 3 Depts of Government should be each independent of the other, the executive, legislative, and judicial. New, all laws are not written. The common law is what is called the unwritten law. So the laws of the seas from the time of Oleron are unwritten laws, and yet are laws of nations. For 79 years we have been expounding our Constitution and system of government. It has been expouned by those who framed it. It was not possible to put in form of words every consideration that lay in and about the instrument, for then it would have been more extended than the Pandects of Ju] s tinian. It was intended for a Constitution to be built upon, construed, and has been construed by those who frauied it. It has been determined that there are classes of officers, for instance, judges of the Supreme Court, appointed during good behavior who can only for misbehavior be ejected; a person regularly to the military service aanppoorintoeudr system can be removed, if in the Army, by an Army court martial; ifin the Navy, by auaval courtmartial that has tried and adjudged him. This has grown to be law, and is law. The case of Marbury vs. Madison, if I remember aright, was the case of a justice of the peace, appointed in this District, whose term was fixed for live years by law. That is within the province of legislation; but there are n class of officers who are not within the province of leflislution, and after all their administration be cage to the executive Dept of the Government. Legislation belongs to us as much as judgment belongs to the Sn reine Court. “do were not made to make officer s. We are merely advisers of the President with regard to a class of officers, and not necessarily all officers, not inferior officers. In this legislation we are indirectly undertakin to usurp the functions of the executive hea of the Government, whose business it is to understand these things by himself and through those whom he is authorized to surround imself with. We are usurping his authorit; we have not the legitimate power to do what is here proposed; and it is againstthe policy by which the foundation of this Government was laid. This kind of legislation is itself in its character revolutionary. It is breaking up the established order of things for a mere tem porary purpose. There is no disguising the underlyin motive for this movement; it is patent. "hat from it must spring evlil consequences is indubitable. We ought to live as a people that should endure through cen turies and wh handle our institutions as things of a day? Tis is one of that class of movements, and I trust it will not meet the divorable consideration of the Senate.