Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I do not know that I made myself understood when this question was before the Senate on a former occasion, and it is likely that some of the members of the Senate may have supposed that I was of opinion that it was not in the power of the Congress of the U.S. to interfere with the Presidents right to remove in any case. I rise principally for the purpoge of saying that I agree fully with the honorable member from Ohio, [Mr. Susanu] that in relation to all inferior officers, it is competent. for the Congress of the U.S. to vest their appointment either in the President alone or in the heads of the Depts alone, and to provide either that they run he turned out by the party in whose power e appointment is vested or that they may not be turned out. In the case of Marbuiy vs. Madison, referred to by my friendfrom issouri[Mr. Hnnmmson] the other da, it will be found that Chief Justice Marshall, speakin for the whole court in that case went upon tie ground that the articular odicer whose commission was invo ved being an inferior Officer and his appointment by act of Congress being for the period of 5 years, it was not in the power of the President to remove him during that period; and Mr. Justice Story, in those passages of the Commentaries to which the honorable member also referred, takes the same ground, and I have never heard it disputed, that it is in the power of Congress by law to place inferior officers in a situation to which the power of removal by the President will not apply, to withhold from him a power which he has notexcept with the consent of Congress, as far as the inferior oficers are concerned. In the absence of any provision in relation to such inferior appointments, placing the appointee out of the reach of the part who is to appoint for the term of the law, whether he be the President or the head of a Dept or a judge of the court, it is in the power of the appointing power to remove; but it is in the power of congress to provide that there shall be no removal in such cases except upon such terms as Congress themselves may provide. The honorable Senfrom Ohio, tierefore, in myjudgment and I can add nothing to the force of INS argument is clearly right in the opinion that he has expressed. It is an opinion thatI have held for many, many years. I entertained it after an examination of the subject during the Presidency of General Jackson. I said the other daythat the authority of the POTUS to remove had not only never been denied by the Supreme Court in any of the cases in which that question was presented, but had been virtually admitted. The case that I had in my mind the name of it, however, I did not for the moment recollect was the case of exparte Hen nen, reported in 13 Peters. Heunen was a clerk of the district court of the U.S. for Louisiana. The act of Congress gave to that district judge the authority to appoint the clerk, and without assignin any cause for his removal other than the wish to appoint apersonal friend, which appeared in the proceedings, he removed Hennen and appointed some body else, and Henneu applied for a mandamus to compel the district court to reinstate him in the office. The court, in the opinion as deliv ered by Mr. Justice Thompson as we all know, one of the ablest judges who ever sat upon that bench throughout recognized, as I think, the authority of the President to remove. I will read a sentence or 2 from that part of his op“inion. He says: It cannot for a moment he admitted that it was the intention of the Constitution that those offices which are denominated inferior officcs should be held for life and if removable nt ileasurc. by whom is such a removal to be made? n the absenceof all constitutional revision or statutory regulation it would seemto lie a.sound and DEGE MT rule to oou sider the power of removal as incident.to the power of appointment. This power of removal from office was a subject much disputed and upon which agreat diversity of opinion wasentertained in the early history of this Government. This related, however.to the power of the President to remove oficers appointed with the concurrence of the Senate: and the rent uostion was, whether the removal was to be y the residentaloneorwith the concurrenceof the Senate, both constitutiu the appointing power. No onedenied the power of the president and Senate. jointly, to remove.wherethe tenureof the office was not fixed bthe Constitution: which was a full recoarnition 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 powerwasvestedin the s President alone and such would appear to have hcenuthe legislative construction of the Constitution. Then he refers to the acts constituting the several Depts of the Government, and in speaking of that which provides for the constitution of the Navy Dept, he says: “When the Navy Deptwas establishedin the year 17931, Story, 498.provision is madefor the charge and custodyof the books. records, and documents of the Dept. incaseof vacancyin the office of Secretary, by removal or otherwise.” [nail the other laws, the provision is “by removal by the President or otherwise.” The words “by the President” are omitted in the not establishing the Navy Dept. “ It is nothere said, by removal of the President, as is done with respectto the heads of the other Depts: and yet there can be no doubt that he olds his Office by the sametenure as the other Secretaries and is removable by the President. The change of phraseologyarose.probably, from its having become those ttled and well understood construction of the Constitution, that the powenof removal was vested in the President alone in such cases, although the appointment of the oficer was by the President and Senate."