Mr. FESSENDEN. I object to this last clause requiring the President in case of removals to give his reasons to the Senate. I do not think we have a right to require that. If the President in the exercise of this power chooses to remoVe persons, we have a right to say that those appointed in their places shall not be paid until the Senate has chosen to act upon their nominations; but to put the President to the necessity in all cases of telling the Senate. if he nominates another person for an office, the reason why he does it, is a new thing. such approposition was offered once in the time of Genera Taylor by my immediate predeces sor. He brought it up over and over acain in a very strongly Democratic Senate. I do not remember whether they finally voted it down or not, but if not, they got rid of it; the would not pass it at any rate, holding to the doctrine that the President, having the power of removal, so long as he had it he must exercise his own discretion about that, and that with reference to his appointments the Senate would consider whether they were properappointments to be made. I see no impropriety whatever in saying that when appointments are made during the recess, especially those which might as wel be made to the Senate when it is in session, yment to those appointees shall be deferre until they have been confirmed. I do not think there is anything personal or offensive in making that rule. he doctrine which has been broached lately, and a matter conversed about under the administration of President Lincoln, was car ried as far as this: thatthe President might nom inate an officer during the recess of the Senate, which would hold a to the conclusion of the next session, and i then he was rejected or turned out, or at least not acted upon, it was again a vacancy arising in the recess of congress, and the President might immediately at the same man in that the Senate had refuse to confirm; and thus, in spite of the Senate, in spite of the constitutional provision, the power of appointment would rest entirely in the president, and the Senate was a nullity. I do not know and do not presume that President John son would attempt to do anything of that description. It is to be presumed he would not; but President Lincoln did, certainly in one case. I thought at the time it was exceedingly imreer, and the doctrine was followed out an the practice became fixed, that in realit the Senate would amount to just nothing at al.