Mr. TRUMBULL. The law would notpro vide any compensation when we took it away, would it? Is the old law any better than the one which repeals it? Then the Senfrom Vermont takes this position, that we have a right to establish an O 0e and not establish any salaryto it; but having established an office with a salary, we cannot take the salary away. If that is satisfactory to him, he is entitled to the benefit of all that that argument can give him. I do not think because we once attach a salary to an office We are obliged to continue the salary, any more than when we create an office we are obliged to giveasalary with it. If there is a former law giving a salary inconsistent with this, of course this subsequent statute repeals it. But the Senator tells us he has no knowl edge that the President designs making any removals; he does not know that the President has any purpose of the kind. Well, sir, I have some knowledge that removals are being made throughout the country. It is not proper to speak here of removals which have been made and are now pending in executive session; but if it was, I think I could bring to the notice of the Senator quite a number of cases. But, sir, outside of executive session, I have seen it stated in the newspapers of the country that the marshal of the western district of pennsylvania has been removed. that the collector of internalrevenue in the district of Pittsburg has been removed, that the postmaster in Pittsburg has been removed. Sir, [have heard ofanumber of removals, which are also noticed in the papers in my own State. Yes. sir. I have heard of a letter written to a man holding an insignificant office in Illinois from one of the Depts, informing him that, having taken part in a meeting which passed resolutions sustaining Congress, he won d have an opportunity to explain the matter. The Senator seems not to have heard of any of these things. Now, sir, I have as much confidence in the people as the Senfrom Vermont. I do not believe the people of this country are to be corrupted by patronage; but I am opposed to fostering men for the very purpose of giving them the benefit of official position to defeat measures which I believe, and which the Senfrom Vermont has told you he believes, essential to the best interests of the country. This amendment having been adopted. I trust the Senate will not reconsider it. It wal not an original proposition with me. The Senfrom Missouri1st proposed an amendment to this appropriation bill which seemed to me defective, and I aided in trying to perfect it. This explains my connection with it. I thought it was properthen; I think so now; and I think that after having adopted this amendment by the deliberate vote of the Son ate, if we now recall the bill and reconsider the vote by which it was adopted, it will be virtually saying to the POTUS that the Senate is prepared to vote money to pay men put into office for the Very purpose of defeating the measures which we. believe essential to the preservation of the government and the perpetuity of our free institutions, and put there, too, by displacing faithful officers against whom no complaint exists. I am sorry if the Senfrom Vermont cannot stand upon this position before the people of Vermont. I regret that he feels he cannot stand upon the position of refusing to pay men put into office at the sacrifice of men.who are discharging their whole duty to the Government. Sir, if a man in office has been guilty of any official act of omissibn or commission the President may remove him, and his op oiutee, whoever he may be, is entitled to pay; but if he has been guilty of no official deliu guency whatever and is removed by the Presi cut during the recess of the Senate simply for the purpose of giving place vto a person who will do the behests of the President or of anybody else, except in the proper discharge of his official duty, I think he ought not to be paid till confirmed by the Senate; and I am willing to stand upon that position before the comitry and the peopleof my own State.