Mr. HENDERSON. this signed “G. Welles, SecyNavy.” Now, sir, when you come to the Norfolk navy yard, who can be appointed under this letter? Those parties who agree with Congress, who believe that the rebellious States ought not immediately to be admitted, are termed by the SecyNavy “disunionists;” they are “disloyalists.” e goes on to explain what he means by “disunionists.” He says that any person who is opposed to the immediate admission of these States and the admission of their representatives into both branches of Congress is a disunionist, and those men it is not the policy of the President to appoint. Now, when he comes to talk about disunionists on the other side, how does he define them 7. Not those parties who fought in the confederate armies; not those men who were anxious to get a bill of this sort passed. the faithful adherents of General Lee and JeffersonDavis. They may be appointed. See how it is qualified: “Those who oppose the Government in its efforts to establish national amity, whether claiming that States have the right to voluntarily withdraw from the Union by secession” Why, sir, I suppose that not more than 1/3rd of the southern people at the time of the rebellion in 1861 advocated secession as a constitutional right. They only resorted torebellion as a revolutionary right. They did not claim it as a constitutional right. The SecyNavy only excludes on the southern side of the question those men who claimed that secession was a constitutional remedy; all others can be appointed at Norfolk. An individual offers himself there for employment. The question is not “Did you serve in the confederate armies?” not “Were you a soldier in Lee's army or Johnston's army?” because such a man may be perfectly competent under this instruction; but the questionis, “Do you believe in secession as a constitutional right?” “I do not, ” says the applicant. “You, sir, can be employed; I will receive you in the Norfolk navy yard." Another individual offers himself, and he is asked, “Are you in favor of the immediate admission of members of Congress from the seceded States?” He answers, “I am not.” Then he is told “You are a disloyal ist; you are a disunionist; you must leave; you cannot get employment here.” I do not like this sort of dealing with Union men, men who have stood by the Government during the late difficulty. It may possibly be that the Senfrom Pennsylvania is correct in his view that the President has not carried the matter to this extreme; but I show you that the SecyNavy has done it, and he sends us his letter of instruction written in October last. I do not know whether other Secretaries have carried it to this extent or not. I suppose they would frankly send in the instructions they have issued to the heads of bureaus upon this subject. I have no personal knowledge of the matter except that in this case a friend of mine was unjustifiably removed at the Norfolk navy yard; and not only that, he was supplanted by a person who was not qualified and who was, as I understand, disloyal heretofore. I know him to have been a loyal man. I know him to have been and to be now an upright and honest man, devoted to the best interests of the Government and as capable in his position as any man that could have been employed; but he was discharged under these instructions and another person put in his stead. That fact is unquestionable. I have no ill feeling; I have no revengeful feeling or spite to gratify against the southern people. I i.to see these difficulties healed up as soon as possible. I do not persecute them; I never have done so; I do not intend to do so. I have no ill feeling against the heads of Depts or the President; but I do think that the Senate has been treated in an improper manner in regard to its share of the appointing and deprive them of their guarantied constitutional power. While I am up, I will say that at the ast session of Congress I was not only wanted to curb the power of Mr. JOHNson, but the power of all succeeding Presidents. It is no more important in Mr. JOHNson's case than it will be in the case of the President who. }. The present system is demoralizing and corrupting. Do we not know it? Do we not feel it? Do not men go to the president to get appointments, pledging the president that they are with him, and then come before us and leave us to infer, either by direct expressions to that effect or by innuendo, that they are sustaining and upholding the policy of Congress. Therefore I say that it is demoralizing: it will ever be; and there are now too many offices in this country to be entirely controlled by one man. One good reason in favor of the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts is, that we propose in this measure to leave the heads of B.o.entirely under the control of the President, and not to require the sanction of the Senate for their removal. Under this bill the President may remove the SecyWar, the SecyTreasury, or any head of a Dept, and we should have no control over it, and through them he could do as General Jackson did in order to effect the removal of the deposits; it is a very easy matter, Mr. Duane refused to remove them; Judge Taney was willing to do it; the 1st was removed and the latter put in his place. General Jackson said expressly in his protest to the Senate that he did not order Mr.Taney to do it, but he knew he would do it when he removed Mr. Duane and put Mr. Taney in his place. Suppose Mr. Stanton should refuse to make removals that the President may desire. I do not know that the President will ask him to make any; but suppose that such a thing should occur; that an ambitious President should desire removals of subordinates to be made. His Secretary, Mr. Stanton, declines to make those removals. He may remove Mr. Stanton without consulting the Senate as to the propriety of that removal, and put in his place a man who will make the removals he desires. If the President can remove the Cabinet ministers, he can effect the removal of all the subordinate officers. But I am not disposed to vote for the proposition of the Senfrom Massachusetts as an amendment to this bill; and I regret that it has been offered. I think, however, it is a proposition that deserves a great deal of consideration, and ought to have more consideration than we can possibly give to it now and here. It ought to go before a committee and there be carefully examined. I undertook at the last session to prepare a bill and I believe it is the 1st bill that was prepared on this subject, and I found that innumerable difficulties beset me on every side, and the Senfrom Massachusetts will find, unless he is very careful in his legislation, that many difficulties may ensue. Some difficulties have been presented that ought to be remedied in this bill. For instance, it has been urged by the opposition to the measure, and urged with a great deal of force, that a foreign minister may die on the day of the adjournment of the Senate, and it may be very important to have the place filled, but under this bill it cannot be. A very simple amendment might be framed which in my judgment would remedy that difficulty and which the President could not abuse. The amendment I would make to meet that case would be a provision that a vacancy should be presumed to exist at the time when actual notice of the existence of the vacancy came to the knowledge of the President. In drafting the bill to which I have alluded I, inserted a provision of that sort. I think it ought to be in this measure, and if it be inserted, the only objection I have heard urged against the bill will have been removed. I have said, Mr. President, all that I desired to say.