Mr. HOWARD. As to the duty of the presidect to execute the laws I wish to say one word. He is bound by his oath of office to see that the laws are faithfully executed. There is no doubt about this obligation, nor the form in which it is assumed; he is sworn to do so; but if the Senfrom Indiana takes the ground that the POTUS can constitutionally derive from that grant of power any authority whatever which is not granted to him in other portions of the Constitution, then I must say that I differ entirely with the Senfrom Indiana. The oath of office of the POTUS gives him no power whatever; he derives no additional authority or additional functions from his mere oath of office; he is sworn to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and of course as Congress make the laws and impose this obligation upon him it is their duty to provide the proper and necessary instruments to enable him to perform this duty to which he is thus sworn. He uses, and he can use, only such instrumentalities as are furnished him by statute of the U.S. for the purpose of seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. He derives no additional authority from that clause of the Constitution. Congress are under oath, and each member of Congress takes an oath faithfully to discharge his duty, and he is sworn to furnish the necessary facilities to the President in the shape of legislation to enable him to perform his duties; and that is the beginning and the middle and the end of the whole thing. If Congress fail to furnish the necessary instruments, then the POTUS is blameless if the laws go unexecuted; because it is not his fault, but, on the contrary, the fault of Congress. We stand in the place of the responsible party. a law passed of that character establishing Well, sir, as to the particular case put by the honorable Senfrom Indiana, the head of the Freedmen's Bureau was not appointed at the particular session to which he refers. The President on the 3d of March, he tells us, is usually engaged in the examination of bills. True, he generally is; it is inconvenient and in some cases perhaps it may be said to be morally impossible that he should on that day, before the close of the session, fill the office. I grant that; but what is the logical consequence? Nothing, except his inability to perform a duty which rested upon him. But here is a further facility placed in the hands of the President. He sees when he reads the bill on the 3d of March that it requires the appointment of an officer to perform the functions created by the statute; he is unable on that day to designate a proper person to the Senate to fill the office. The Constitution enables him at any time to call the Senate together; he may by a single word of his mouth direct a note to be published in a newspaper, or a note to be sent to each member of. Senate, convening them on the 4th of March, for the purpose of acting upon executive nominations, and this one among others; and that has been the usage of the President from the beginning of the Government. At the close of almost every session of Congress the Senate has been detained in executive session.