Mr. HOWE. I assent to much that the Senfrom Maryland has now said. Taking the same side of the question I do not insist that the Senfrom Maryland could add anything to the argument of Mr. Madison on the question whether the Constitution conferred this power on the President or not. I concede that Mr. Madison said everything on that side of the question that could be said. I only insist that the Senfrom Maryland, if he would lend himself to the labor, could undo the argument which Mr. Madison submitted, and in a very short space of time. But the bill, I repeat, and I repeat it for the benefit of my friends on this side of the House, denies this power to the President as derived from the Constitution. It is to them I address myself when I urge them to perfect the reform which the bill but just inaugurates. But the Senfrom Maryland has thrown out one or 2 suggestions why, whether this power is conferred on the President or not by the Constitution, he thinks he ought to have it; and the 1st is, that these heads of depts, he repeats again, are the confidential advisers of the President. He will repeat that, if he is not careful, so many times that he will get to believing in it. It has been my purpose in this debate to show that no such thing was designed; that there is nothing in the Constitution which intimates it, nothing in the character of these offices which indicates it. But he supposes, nay he asserts, that there have always been in the Cabinet aspirants for the Presidency. Well, of what benefit is this authority to summarily remove them in that respect. They have been there, if at all, in spite of that authority, for the President has always had it in his power, to remove them, and yet he has never cleared them out. They have been there in spite of the authority. remove the authority and they cannot be any more than there. But aspirants for the Presidency may just as well be in the Cabinet as in the Congress, may just as well be in the Cabinet or in the Congress either, as o Jf among the they are aspirants for the presiency and they expect the Presidency to be conferred upon them by the American people, I infer, if they are not stupid aspirants, as some. times happens to be the case, they will be all the more laborious to promote the public welfare. If that be the fact, I do not assume that that will unfit them for members of the Cabinet; I assume that they will only be all the more fitted. But, Mr. President, the Senator tells us that it may so happen that each one of these aspir ants for the Presidency may have a policy of his own, and that there may be as many policies in the Cabinet as there may be individuals in the Cabinet. Sir, I want to stand here simply to say to the Senate that there should be but one policy in any Cabinet, and that should be the policy Prescribed to both President and Cabinet by the lawmaking tribunal of the U.S. No head of an executive dept has any business with a policy; nor has the President any business with a policy. He has a duty to discharge. His duty is to execute, not his own will, but the American will, and to derive that will from American law as spoken by the American Legislature.