Mr. HOWE. I am going to vote for this amendment if I get a chance. I think I will vote for any part of it, for almost anyoneline of it. I would rather vote for the whole of it than for any part of it. It was said last evening that the modification made by the mover of the amendment was more objectionable than the amendment as originally introduced. Mr. President, what is this proposition? As introduced it proposed to say that no art of the money to be appropriated by this bill should be evpende on persons or officers undertaking to exercise or perform the duties of an office which by law is required to be filled by the advice and consent of the Senate who shall not be confirmed by the Senate. The language is: That no person exercising or performing or undertaking to exerciseor perform, the duties of any office which by law is required to be filled by the advice and consent of the Senate shall before confirmation by the Senate.recoiveuny salary or compensation forhis services. Unless such person becom missionedbythe Presidentto fill up a vacancywhich has happened by death. resi nation or expiration of term during the recessof the Senate and sinceitl last adjournment. What is the objection to that? The objection urged was that incom etent or dishonest and faithless men may be ound in office during the recess of the Senate, and it might become necessary in the judgment of the xecutive, and in the judgment of all men it might be manifestly necessary to remove that officer, and if we adopted the amendment as it then stood, it won! preclude payment to the successor ofan officer so removed. In other words, it was held to be a check upon the right of the President to remove an incompetent Officer or a dishonest officer in the recess of the Senate. To meet that objection to the amendment it was modified esterday, and the latter clause of it now rea s: Unless such person be commissionedby the Pros ident to fill up a vacancywhichhas happenedduring the recessof the Senate and since its list adjournment by death. resignation, ox irutipn of term, or removal for actsdone or omitte in violation of the duties of his allies; the cause in caseof removal to be reported to the Sonataat its next region. What is the objection to that? It was said yesterday, it has been said repeatedly during this debate, that the question of the right of the President to make removals had been settled, was established, was no longer to be controverted. If that be so, I am opposed to the whole amendment. If it is settled that the President has under the Constitution the right to remove officers at his pleasure, let him do it. I hold that the President ought to discharge every part of the dut laid upon him by the Constitution. When e does make a removal then he makes a vacancy; and I know. when a vacancy exists, the Constitution makes it the bounden duty of the President to fill it or to I see that it is filled. If the Senate be not in session he must fill it himself. If the Senate is in session, he mustnominate and enable the Senate to fill it. If, therefore, it be the settled construction of the Constitution that the president may remove officers at his pleasure, then a vacancy legally, regularly occurs, and when that vacancy is filled it is the duty of the Legislature to appropriate the money necessary to pay the salary. hold, Mr. President, that this amendment is one of the most important, if not the most important, proposition that I have been called to vote upon since I have had the honor of a seat on this floor. It is nothing less than whether 100 millions of money is to be placed in the hands of the POTUS, and always kept there, to be used in propagating political opinions with the people of the U.S. I never saw an opinion, I never heard of a political opinion that I would be willing to propagate at that expense. I think if we conno this missionary work to the proper organs, all political opinions which are proor to be inculcated upon the American people may be inculcated at a muIch less expense. will not vote for this amendment; I will not vote for any other proposition which is calculated either to restrict the powers which the Constitution confers upon the President or which are calculated to embarrass him in the exercise of those powers; and I say once more, if the Constitution does delegate to the POTUS the right or the power to make these removals, it is our duty to acqui ese e in that construction, to recognize the vacancies thus created, to cooperate cheerfully with the President in filling them, and appropriate regularly and annually the mone necessary to pay the officers thus afliointe; but I say that that power never was given to the President by the Constitution and never ought to be vested in him by the Constitution. This question has been treated as if all the officers whose duty it is to collect the customs, whose duty it is to collect the internalrevenue, whose duty it is to act as marshals and de duty marshals of the several districts, all these subor dinate Officers were the mere assts, aids, waiters, personal attendants upon the President to elp him diseha e his duties, and as though he were individually and officially resonsible for all their acts. controvert both those propositions. There is not one of these officers, from the collector of customs to the deputy marshals, but what is a minister of the law. Almost every one of these offices has been created by law, by the enactment of Congress, to perform some duty which Congress thought ought to be discharged. There is no manner of“ truth or propriety in saying that they are the agents or the aids of the POTUS They are simply the agents or ministers of the people of the U.S., called to do their work, commissioned to serve their interests and I deny that the POTUS is responsible for their conduct or misconduct. Nobody ever urged, nobody ever thought of intimating, no one ever thought of holding the head of one of your Executive Depts responsible for the conduct or misconduct of those employees working under his immediate e e. when there have been defalcations, pec uations, or other acts of misconduct, who ever thought of holdin the SecyWar, the SecyTreasury, or anyone of the heads of the Exccutive Depts responsible for such misconduct or for an misconduct of subordinates? Each one of those officers has an Official duty to discharge, and each one of them, whether he be the head of a Dept or a clerk in it, has his duties rescribed by law, not always to be found intestatate, but the authority is found in the statute for directing him in the discharge of his duties. When he discharges them he receives the credit of“fidelity. When he fails to discharge those duties he ought to receive the punishment due 30 infidelity. I am not sure that he always oes. Mr. President, the light to be gathered from the language of the Constitution is in a small compass and it seems to me is conclusive. The Constitution says that the President “Shiill nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint cmbnssadors, other public ministers and consuls. judges of the Supreme Court, and allother officers of the U.S. whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be establishedby law; but tho Conurcss may by law vent the appointmentofsuch inferior officersas they think proper in the President alone, ip the courts of law, or in the heads of Depts. What possible ideas could the makers of this Constitution have had in their heads when they used this language, if they did intend that after all the President should have the right to remove all these appointees when he p eased to do so? Why require the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of a postmaster if the moment the Senate adjourns the President can create a vacancy in that office, which he fills himself, independent of the Senate? That interpretation of the Constitution would give us the services of postmasters and other officers for about 24 hours in the year. On the last do of the session of this body the President mig it send us the names of those officers whom he wanted confirmed. That complies with the clause of the Constitution which says he shall nominate. He has discharged that duty. Then we confirm or we reject as we see fit. Suppose we confirm under those circumstances? He would surely send us men unobjectionable to the Senate, however objectionable they might be to him, and why? because we adjourn tomorrow, and as soon as we have adjourned he has nothing to do but quietly dislace the officer and thent ere is avacanc, an that vacancy the Constitution express y tells him to fill himself by a commission ema nating from himself. This provision, requiring the concurrence of the Senate to any of these appointments, you see, if that is theinterpretation of the power of removal, is the i est thing in the world. But if this power to remove officers is at all necessary, or was thought to be necessary to be vested in the President in order to secure the efficiency of the public service, why did the makers of the Constitution say to Congress in so many words, “You may take from the President the appointment of just as many of these subordinate officers as you please?” It does say “ Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper” we are the judge of what are inferior officers where they are not rescribed in the Constitution “in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Depts.” Every one of these subordinate officers the President may by actpf Congress be deprived of all control over, and the apointment may be vested in your courts or in the heads of the Depts. Why did the framers of the Constitution give this power to congressif the deemed it essential that the President should haveaeontinuing. supervisingcontrol overthese officers? It is evident to in mind that such an idea never entered the hea of any member of that Convention. Notawordissaid of the presidents power to remove anybod. The Senfrom Maryland reminds us that not a word is said of the right of the President with the concurrence of the Senate to remove anybody. That is true; but I understood him to admit that the President with the concurrence of the Senate would have the right to remove any officer appointed by the President with the concurrence of the Senate.