Mr. JOHNSON. My friend did not read the whole of that dissenting opinion or he would never have come so positively to that conclusion. Mr. Justice McLean said and it is better that I should read his very words, and it will be seen that he admits the power of removal, instead of contesting it: “It was supposed that the exercise of this power o chatrhgeePorfeseidxeenctutwivaes dnuetcieess.sarTyhfoart the efficientdisto consult the Senate in making removals, the same as in making appointments, would be too tardy for the correction of abuses. By a temporary appointment the public service is now provided for in game provision caseof death, and the could be made where immediate removals are necessary.” 17 Howard, p. 306. “Immediate removals” of whom? There was nobody but the President authorized to remove such officers as are spoken of by the learried justice. He admits, therefore, so far from contesting, that the exigencies of the Government may require an immediate removal; and as there existed no power to make a removal known to the laws in relation to the officers of which he was speaking except the President, he admits that the President has the power in certain cases to make an immediate removal. But that is not all; he 3. on upon the next page, which my friend did not read, to say: “If the power to remove from office be inferred from the power to appoint, both the elements of appointing power are necessarily included. the Constitution has declared what shall be the executive power to appoint, and by consequencethesame poor should be exercised in a removal.” Ibid., p. In other words, he agreed with those who denied the power in the beginning; but what does he say is the law now? Something must be settled; the age cannot go oning without have some established; no Government can last which has one constitution to day and another constitution tomorrow. contemporary construction, acquiesced in by the people, recognized by the courts, adopted by the Executive, in relation to any particular subject, must be the law. Now, what does he say, looking to the effect of what had been the practice of the Government? “But this power of removal has been perhaps too long established and exercised to be now questioned. The voluntary action of the Senate and the President would be necessary to change the practice: and as this would require the relinquishment of a power by 9ne of the parties to be exercised in conjunction !";the other, it can scarcely be expected.” Ibid., P. So that Mr. Justice McLean considered it settled that the absolute power of removal was in the President, according to the settled practice of the Government under the Constitution. On the same point I take occasion also to refer to the case of exparte Hennen, 13 Peters, 250. Mr. Justice Thompson, deliv ering the opinion of the court in that case, said: “This power of repoval from officewas a subject much disputed, and upon which a great diversity of opinion was entertained in the early history of this Government. This related, however, to the power of the President to remove officers appointed with the concurrence of the Senate; and the oquestion was, whether the removal was to be by the President alone, or with the concurrence of the senate, both constituting the appointing power. No ojoninetdlyenied the power of the President and Senate to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the Constitution: which was a recognition full of the principle that the power of removal was incident to the power of appointment. But it was very early adopted as the practical construction of the Constitution that this power was vested in the President alone.”–13 Peters, p. 259. Mr. President, I have but a few words more to say, and they will be addressed particularly to a vindication of Mr. Madison, not in respect to the opinion which he maintained that the Executive had the power to remove, but as to the effect and meaning of the resolutions of 1798. I will not trouble the Senate by reading them. When the doctrine of nullification was started by Mr. Calhoun and maintained by a plausible course of reasoning which deceived, as I think, the unthinking, and certainly car. ried along with him the judgment nearly of his whole State, the Legislature of SCarolina, and the politicians of the South generally maintained that that doctrine of or secession was found incorporated in the Kentucky resolutions of 1799 and the Virginia resolutions of 1798. Mr. Madison then wrote several letters to his relative, Mr. Cabell, of Richmond; he wroote to Mr. Webster after Mr. Webster his celebrated speech upon the foot resolutions; he wrote to Mr. Everett; and the work which I have before me contains all of the letters to which I have adverted upon that subject, in which he denies positively that the resolutions of 1798, which he admits were drawn by him, and the celebrated report in support of those resolutions, which also was drawn by him, gave the slightest color in his view to the doctrine either of nullification or secession. I have not time to read the letters, nor is it necessary for my purpose. By a course of reasoning that I think must carry conviction to the judgment of all who are not past conviction, he demonstrates that either doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the continuance of the Government, and being so inconsistent, can have no foundation in the Constitution of the U.S.; and he tells us what he meant by those resolutions of his and the report; and not only that, but the Kentucky resolutions, which were drafted by Mr. Jefferson, he tells his correspondent, Mr. Cabell, were never in tended by that statesman to imply any such doctrine. At that time Mr. Jefferson had left this land of his love and of his hope. Before he died he thought that he saw in. temper of the public mind it is immaterial to inquire whether he supposed the danger was in the South or in the North, or in the general prevailing temper of the country danger to the continuation of our institutions; but as Mr. Madison tells us who knew Mr. jefferson's thoughts, who had served as his SecyState for 8 years, who was his constant correspondent after he himself became POTUS, and when he retired continued to be his correspondent, Mr. Jefferson never contemplated as constitutional the doctrine either of nullification or of secession. I am glad, therefore, to be able, with what I think consists with the truth of history, to vindicate the memory of each of these great men from the assertion that they were guilty of an error which would have rendered, and if it was ree ognized as a truth would render the continuance of our institutions as temporary as the shadows. A word more, and I shall cease to trouble the Senate. My friendfrom Pennsylvania Mr. CowAN] was supposed by some of the Senators to threaten another revolution if this bill or bills of a like character were passed. He disavows any such purpose; and thosewho know his frankness have no hesitation in believing in the sincerity of that disavowal. I do not anticipate and do not fear any such revolution as that; but there may be a revolu.tion of a different kind, the kind of revolution which changed the whole political destiny of the country for a time, and which was success. fully brought about in 1800. The Congress of the U.S., acting with the assent of the then President, Mr. Adams, because he ap: proved of the bills, had passed the alien and the sedition laws. The country became alarmed. No force was threatened of a physical kind; but the subjects of the alleged usurpation of power by Congress became matters of political speculation and discussion in the papers of the day. The people of the country came to the rescue of the Constitution thus, in their opinion, invaded, and swept from power thosewho had adopted such measures. I am no prophet, Mr. President. I may not live to see the day when it shall occur, if it occurs at all, when. thesame revolution will be seen condemning many of the measures of the present dayprecisely upon the same ground that the people in 1800 censured and condemned what had been done at that time. A latitudinarian construction of the Constitution, the absorption of nearly all power into the legislative depart.ment of the Government, an unwillingness to submit to the judiciary, an interference with what have heretofore been considered the legitimate powers of the President I do not say from any bad motive these are the symp. toms of the times. We have just emerged from a war without example in the annals of civil strife or any other strife. Every house in our broad land is filled more or less with mourning for the departed dead who, upon one side or theother, have died in support of what they believed to be the principles of liberty. The angry pas'sions have been excited. They more or less affect us all, for members of Congress are but men. They lead to a claim for power that would not have been thought of in the begin' ning of the Government. When everything becomes quiet and settled; when the particular circumstances to which the party who are now dominant owe their present condition shall cease to exist; when they shall have a PreSodent of their own choice, (if that is to be th: result of the present state of things,) who will carry out what they believe to be the true policy of the country, reason then, with them an with the Opposition, (if it does not control" now,) will control, and a better day will dawn upon a now distracted land. But, sir, that ls not to be done through the instrumentality of a civilWar. Its desolation; the affliction wo which it has visited individual men and women; the loss of material wealth; the danger to which our very Government was subjected during"; existence, and must be more or less subjeo, during any such strife all are warnings to keep us again from entering into any such confo, The conflict into which alone the people oil enter will be that which the ballot will decido for which that weapon alone will be used; " when, as I believe in my existence, the shall come when the excitement of the shaji have terminated and the judgment of!” people shall be what it was from the beginn": of the Government up to the conne. of this strife, the Constitution will be o: in all its integrity and each dept of Government be permitted to exercise of power which the Constitution as constru" " the past vests with it.