Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, when this subject was before the Senate originally, I did not mingle in the debate, because I considered it then, as it seems to be now, a controversy more between the 2 branches of the Republican party than between the Republican party and the party to which I belong. Sir, there seem to be 2 wings of that party, according to this debate hhe one led by Congress and the other by the POTUS As I have said before, I belon to neither, but I belong to a party much O dei than either, a party having its origin at the foundation of this Government, a party under whose counsels and advice and management this country grew from a feeble Republic to be one of the greatest nations upon the earth. During its existence and control no civilWar affiicted the land, and none of the evils were experienced under its management of public affairs that we have suffered during the short, brief and terrible reign of this now distracted party. The Democratic party has but very little interest in this controversy as a party. believing, however, the President to be patriotic, and that his policy, if carried out into practice, would conduce to the general benefit of the whole country, would bethe means of soon restoring amicable relations between the States of this Union, and would again put us on the high road to prosperity and happiness as a people, the Democratic party, with a unanimity, yea, sir, a generosny seldom witnessed in the history of political parties, sustains the President in every constitutional effort to restore the relations which formerly existed between the States. That is the connection and that is the only connection which the Democratic party has with this controversy. Sir, I should not. have risen on this occasion if it had not been for a remark which was made by the honorable Senfrom Vermont, [Mr. Po1. Vn.] I listened with great pleasure to his speech. It was able; it was in good taste; it was just such a speech, with very slight exceptions, as we should have expected from a Gentleman of his high reputation. But I was sorry to hear one remark which fell from the lips of that honorable and distinguished Senator. When war was raging in the land, when the passions of the people were excited, when brother was arrayed against brother, and when parties and individual men were striving to prove that they were more loyal than their neighbors, I expected that men would so far forget propriety as to deal in epithets towards their political opponents; but.I had hoped that when peace adreturned, when passion had subsided, when the spirit of party had become calm, I never again in the Senate of the U.S. should hear the term “ copperhead ” drop from the lips of any Senator. But, sir, there is an old maxim, de gustibus nondisputandum est. It maybe the taste of honorable Senators to indulge in such epithets; I will not imitate the example. Not. that it affects me; but I hope thatit is the last time in the Senate of the U.S. that we shall be compelled to listen to such epithets. While I am up, Mr. President, I will say a word upon the measure now before the Senate. It is very strange to me how the power of the POTUS to remove certain officers from their offices can, at this late day, be questioned. 1 had supposed that, as Senators, we were familiar With the early debates in Congress upon this subject, and I had supposed that if the rewas any question clearly and definitely settled, both by the pradtice of the Government and byjudicial decision, it was the power of the President to remove these officers whom he had the power to appoint, and whose terms of office were not limited to a particular period, or during good behavior. Has the President the power, for instance, to appoint the heads of Depts? Has he the power to remove them from office if he sees proper? I do not know that Iunderstood the honorable Senfrom Maryland aright; I do not know but what he half conceded that this power might be taken away from the president by repealing the acts establishing those Depts. But to show that this power of removal clearly exists in the President I will cite 2 passages from the Constitution of the U.S., if it is not now out of order to quote from that instrument. The Constitution, in section 2 of article 2, prevides that “The President shrill be Commander in Chicf of the Army and Navy of the U.S and of the militia of the several States. when called into the actual service of the U.S.: he may require the opiniou.in writinz.of the principal offiecrin each ipnfgtheExocutiyeDeptsuppuan subioctrelat to the duties of their respectiveO oes. 61. The Constitution contemplatesoffices denom inated here as Executive Depts; and in 1789 Congress proceeded, under the authority of the Constitution, to create those Executive Depts the office, as it was called, of Secretary of Foreign Affairs, now SecyState, and the offices of SecyWar, SecyTreasury, and SecyNavy. In the bills organizing those Depts this very question was most elaborately argued and solemnly settled by a vote of congress, that the power to nppointand the power to remove both existed in the POTUS It passed by a very large majority. The main argument upon the bills establishing those Depts arose on the power of the President to remove the officers at the head of them, after he hnd appointed them by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The lauguage of the Constitution is, that the President sha l nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint. Now, who appoints to office? What was the argument then? Some said the appointment was made by the Presideutand the costs; but if we look or a moment we shall see that the Senate has nothing to do in making an appointiment; it acts simply as an adviso bpdy. The President nominates aud the President appoints, but before he makes an appointment he takes the advice of the Senate. EVhen is the appointment perfected? Is it perfected when the Senate gives its advice? No, sir. Then the senate does not appoint. The appointment is only complete an perfect when the President attaches is signature to the commission. It was decided in the case of Mai bury vs. Madison that to render an appointment complete there must be the si nature of the Presideat to the commission. he commission is the evidence of the appointment, and it is not issued and signed until after the Senate has advised the appointment; but suppose after the Senate gives its advice, the President does not choose to make out the commission and does not affix his signature to the commission, I ask you, is there an appointment? Clearly not. This s ows that the President, and the president alone, has the appointing power, and that the office of the Senate is nothing but that of an advisory body. That being so, the question comes back to this: what is the principle governing the power of removal? anyone who looks into Lloyds Debates of that day will see that the doctrine was universally admitted in the argument that the power which appoints is the power which can remove, and which alone can remove. I know thatin those early days the question arose whether the only power of removal was not by impeachment. ome advocated that doctrine; among the rest, Mr. Smith, of SCarolina. Some contended that inasmuch as it required the advice of the Senate befo an appointment could be made, the Senate a.0 had ithe power, conjointly with the President, to remove, and that the president had not the power without the advisory body. But after full argument and it is one of the ablest and most exhaustive arguments to be found in the debates of Congress either in former or present times it was decided by Congress that the President. being the appointing power, had in himself alone the power of removal. and, sir, should it not be so? What are these but executive officers? Their appointment is an executive duty; they are called upon to discharve executive functions; the POTUS is responsible for their conduct to the people and to the country; and therefore, being chargeable with the due administration of public affairs, and being clothed with the executive power, it would, upon principle even, if there were no authority one way or the other, and we were driven to reason abstractly on the subject, be nothing but right and properthat the power to remove should be in the authority which is responsible to the country for the action of the executive agents. But, sir, judicial decisions, as wellas uniform practice, has settled the question. This principle was clearly recognized in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1 Cranch., It was recognized and decided to be settled law in the case of exparte Henuen in 18 Peters. It was declared in both cases that the law was clearly settled, and if on turn to the Life of Washington, by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S., who certainly ought to have known something upon the subject, you will find that he declares it to be settled law that the power of removal is with the President alone and yet, notwithstanding thise dnstruction and the uniform practice from 1789 down to the present hour, some in this debate have gone so far as to question the right of the POTUS to remove the head of 2.Dept or any other officer. I might add to this authority the weight of the great name of Chancellor Kent, of NewYork, who held the same doctrine. This debate is the 1st time in in life, in the last 2fite years at least, that have heard the doctrine questioned. Congress itself has uniformly heretofore recognized the power of removal to be in the resident. In the acts of 1789 establishing the Depts of Foreign Affairs or State, of the Treasury, and of War, provision was made for the appointment of subordinate officers to take charge of the books, papers, &e. of said Depts in case of the removal of the heads of said Depts by the President. This is a clear legislative recognition of the right of the President to remove, and every President has acted under the Constitution in conformity with this recognition of right. But, sir, there are officers whom the President now has the power to remove that Congress may prevent his removing, by, depriving him of the right to appoint them; at hol that while you leava him the appointment of these officers, on cannot take away from him the power O removal. The Constitution empowers Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers in the courts of law or in the heads of Depts. Congress has done that in reference to the appoiutmont of clerks, 8.20., in the Treasury another Depts. congress may by law provide for the appointment of inferior officers by some other party than the President, if Congress sees proper to do so; but Congress has not so far seen proper to do so; dud the proposition now is to attach to an appropriation hi 1 for the support of the postal service of the country an amendment providin that if the POTUS shal, not only in reference to a vacancy happening during the sitting of Congress, but in reereuce to a vacancy which may occur during the recess, undertake to exercise the power admitted to be his, the person appointed by him shall not receive pay unless he shall be confirmed by the an mnoeuounssmmi. or.0312. Mayg, Senate. All I have to say upon that, (notfeeling much interest in it as a party man or personally) is simply that it has not been one from the foundation of the Government up to the present time, under any Administration, however hotly war has waed between congress and the POTUS. When the POTUS was a Whig, a Democratic Senate and HoRep never attempted to take from him this power of removal from office as it has existed ever since the foundation of the Government. When your President was a Democrat and your Congress Whig, they never attempted to deprive him of this power. Let me ask gentlemen what is the great reason for doing it now? If amid the hot conflicts.of party in former days it was not found necessary thus to stigmatize the POTUS, (for it is nothing but an attempted stigma upon him) what great public emer ency demands it at this late hour Do. on are question the actions of your own.iresident? When I questioned some of the racts of the late POTUS, I heard the epithets " copperhead” and “ traitor” rolling thick and t wherever I went. Only 2 or 3 brief years ago if any man questioned the infallibility of the acts of Abra ham Lincoln, if he had not one, 2, or 3 plates of cop or upon his head it was because the tongue O slander could not place it there. But now, sir, having a President of your own election, of your own choice, you atleni t to de rive him of the power which has been liere to ore admitted to belong to the Executiye from the foundation of the Government. For myself I feel no interest in it as a party man. I have {pt to find that the present Executive of the U.S. has appointed the 1st Democrat to office; and let me take occasion to say that while I consider it a pleasure and a pride to be the personal friend of the POTUS, and while I approve and indorse fully every constitutional and patriotic effort that he has made to restore the harmon of this country, and again to cause us to be a happy and a united people, I am looking for my party to no crumbs that fall from the Presidential table. Neither, sir, is the Democratic party looking for those crumbs; they did not vote for him; they have no right to demand his offices; and they do not demand them; but they claim the right, and it gives them pleasure, when he acts nobly and patrioticslly and man fully for the good of the whole countr, to for get the fact tiiat they did not vote for im, and to rally to his so port; and ifhis hands at any time shall fall down, they will hcl to raise them up, if votes and counsel can he p toiraiae them up. They have the harmony of the country, the peace of the country, the restoration of friendly relations betwcen the different States more at heart than the have party triumph. Nay, sir, leave it, this day, to that good old party which launched this ship of state on the billows, to be out of office for fbur, 8, or 20 years, and to stay out, upon the condition of the restored Union under the Constitution as our fathers made it; place before them the alternative of restoring the Union which our fathers framed, or of their coming into power and having this country continually distracted, with 11 States kept out of the Union, and they would retire to the guietude of private life and rejoice that the ag of their country once more waved from ocean to ocean, and from lake to gulf, over a united, happy, and prosperous people. It is a mistake when gentlemen suppose that the members of the Democratic party, in giving such support as they do to the measures and policy of this Administration, are actuated by party considerations, with a view of taking their President away from them, or with a view of getting their offices. Sir, we do not claim their offices. If we dared say anything to the POTUS, we would say to him, “Give your Offices to the men who {Iota, f hr you and, who sustain your policy, pro iflfifiib t qualified to discharge the General Jackson came into dutiesof such officos; but take care, be sure, you give them to friends who will support you sincerely, honestly, and vigorously in the war being waged against youf hid the honorable Senfrom Nevada today seemed to talk as if there was such a war. He knows more about the secrets of the Republican camp than I do. He ought to know allahout that fact. He says, Give us a platform and We can light." Whom is the honorable Senator going to fight? I thought from what I heardin this Chamber that the Democratic party was dead and buried; we have heard that often enough. Surely you are not preparing a platform now to fight this dead party. Then it must be nk platform to be used in this war between the resident and congress; and as to the side On which my friendfrom Nevada is in that fight, a doubt was intimated by my honorable friendfrom Wisconsin. A word more on the subject before the senate, in reference to the question of justice and propriety. You should remember that I am speaking impartially in reference to this matter. I have no interest in it whatever as a party man: but I ask you as a matter of justice, should not the President have the privilege of surrounding himself with a few friends? from what I have heard of the a pointees of the former POTUS, very few of them are the friends, as I suppose, of the present Executive. Now, would it not be just, would it not be magnonimous on the part of this great party. that is going to make war on the resident, if it is going to make war, to give him the privilege of selecting a few friends to be around him? Certainly it is usual to allow adying man to be surrounded by a few friends to comfort him in his dying moments.; If the President be so weak that he has not one %. of the party that elected him as you say, can you not afford to let him take a few.of that 1%. to take counsel with, and to comfort him in his affliction? Why, sir, look at the history of removals in this country. When John Adams came into office there was no occasion for any removal of appointees under General Washingtons Administration; but when Thomas Jefferson came into office there was some occasion for them, becausethen all the offices were filled by persons Opposed to a mnority of the people of the U.S. Mr. Jefferson made but few removals, comparatively few. I believe he removed no man simply because he had voted against him, and no one for more. politienl cause alone unless the man removed. romeffice had made himself particularly obnoxious by his abuse. There was no occasion for Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, or John.Quincy Adams to make many removals, because there was very little divason of parties then, and yet they did all make some. When power there was occasion again because the O cos were mainly filled by those who were up used to him, and yet that. Administration which has been held up can model Administration for proscription made but a little over 600 removals in 8 years, and there were then about 8,000 postmasters in the country besides 1,000s of other officers. Now, even if congress is disposed to take from the POTUS the appointing power, as I admit it has the right to o in a great many instances, by giving the appointment to the Supreme Court or to the heads of Depts, still it. would be nothing but justice to leave to the POTUS the power to appoint a number of his friends to office. Why are gentlemen alarmed, let nic ask? Why should they be alarmed? Why should they entertain the idea that the present POTUS is going to pervert this power of removal to a bad purpose? Is he not surrounded by the “divine Stanton” and such men? Has he not Mr. Seward foran adviser? Are not all his present advisers men whom you have indorsed over and over again? Have you not confidence in your Presidents advisers? Certainly they are not going to make any appointment to injure you. Certainly they will not countenance any appointments in favor of the Democratic party. Sir, let me tell you, that it would take more faith than it requires to remove mountains to cause me to believe that the present SecyState of the U.S., who so long has fought the Democratic party, and who, by the by, I consider the cause of a great deal of the evil that has been bronght upon this country, is going to forsake your standard and rally to the Democratic standard. He is going to do no such thing. But suppose he should, what then? Some few men might follow; but I march under no on ins manufactured out of “divine Stantons and boll ringing Sewards, and other men that I might name. You have them. You have got to keep them. You need not expect to get clear of them. Make war upon them if you choose, because in making war upon the POTUS you.will make war upon his Cabinet. The Democratic party will not be driven from their support of the Chief Magistrate of the U.S., whom they believe to be patriotic, and who in their judgment means well, though he maybe surrounded by men who have warred upon that party all their lives, and whom the Democratic party have always fought; but they will support him in every act that they believe right, and in giving that support they are not animated or governed by any more party considerations, but it is from a love of country and devotion to the country, and because they believe that his policy will conduce more to the interests of the country than your policy will. Although I know I differ with gentlemen on this floor who say they are so triumphantly strong in this country, I believe today that the Democratic party numbers more than 1/2 of the constitutional voters of the U.S. in the States which never seceded; and, sir, now that your bayonets are removed from the lls, now that men can vote freely and not free y, we will hang our banner on the outer wall, and ive it to the God storms, the tempest, and the reeze, and we are not afraid to meet the united hosts of the Republican party in the next presidential election. At the same time, sir, AndrewJohnson may and that is what you are afraid of AndrewJohnson may, if he acts rightly, not through the action of the Democratic party alone, but by the almost spontaneous action of the American people, become the next POTUS If he acts constitutionally, settles those great questions which are now disturbing the nation, settles them peaceably, gives back to the countrya restored Union and s. restored Constitution, the grateful hearts of 100s of 1,000s and millions of American voters may so swell that they may say he deserves yet furtherhonors attheir hands; and if the American people will it neither Congress nor the Republican party can prevent it.