Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, much has been said by the Senfrom Vermont to which I shall have no occasion to allude, as I am not in a position, nor about to assume a position, that makes it necessary for me to go over my political record in order to satisf my friends at home, in the Senate, or elsew ere, that what I am about to do is not a departure from my previous course. I regret very much that in ise ussin this question the Senfrom Vermont, in a preared and written speech, should have reflecte upon the majority of the Senate as he has felt at liberty to do. I regret, sir, that a Senator with whom it has usually been my pleasure to act, should have risen in his place and denounced a measure voted for by a majorit of the Senate, by nearly all his political frien s, and which he himself had once voted for, as political quackery, as ii an indirect and sinister wa oflegislating, and as an attempt to do somet ring in a way which is not open and honest. Does the Senfrom Vermont mean to impute to a majority of this body dishonesty in its action, that it is governed by sinister considerations. that it does not act openly and fairly? I will not suffer myself to be betrayed, Mr. President, into such a reply to these remarks as I think they would warrant. In a body where we areequals, where the motives of members are not to e assailed, and where one is presumed to be as honest as another, I have never indulged in any remarks claiming formyselfgreater honesty than others; nor have I imputed to others sinister designs or dishonest motives. The proposition under consideration has received but a small part of the Senators at tention. He has denounced it as monstrous he has spoken of it as a resort to a doubtful and desperate measure, as one upon which no party can stand; and he has said that he is disposed to make the fight within the pole of the Constitution. Does he mean by that that anybody here isdisposed to make a fight without the pale of the Constitution? Why, sir, I think the majority of the Senate who voted for this measure have as much respect for the Constitution as the Senfrom Vermont, and as little inclination to resort to any sin ister or dishonest mode of legislation to carry out their objects. What, sir, is this amendment? and it is to that that I design to confine my remarks, and not to go into the history of the war, to recount, the gallant deeds of the sons of Vermont or of any other State. Sir, the heroic boys who went from all the States into the Army to put downthis rebellion did their duty, those from Vermont as well as from elsewhere; and, sir, our legislation here should be shaped to secure the fruits of the victories which their valor achieved; and we should not permit by our legislation the fruits of the victories which they won at such great sacrifices to be lost to the country and to posterity. The pending proposition is simply this: that persons unconstitutionally in ofllce shall not be paid. The Senator admits that he would have no objection to that portion of the amendment which provides that if the President shall undertake to fill a vacancy which existed when the Senate was in session, after the Senate has adjourned, the person with whom he fills that vacancy should not be paid; so that to do so much is not dishonest nora resort to a desperate measure. He is willing to refuse pay to an appointee in that case; he makes no objection to the pwvision on this appropriation bill; and what does he object to I e objects to the refusal to pay a salary to a person who obtains his position bya removal without cause, and who is put into office for the purpose of breaking down the Union party of the country and turning the Government over into tbehands of the men who have been fighting for 5 years to destroy it. He tells us that the people of Vermont, of whose gallant sons he has spoken, and to the bravery ofwhose people he has paid a just tribute, are in favor of soing to the POTUS, “hon may, without consulting the Senate, hurl from office withontenuse whomsoeveryou please, and put in their places anybody you lease, a rebel from the reel army if you wil, and we, the people of Vermont, will pay the man you thus appoint in the recess of the Senate.” He is willing to tax the fathers of the gallant boys who went from the State of Vermont and fought to put down the rebellion, for the purpose of paying a rebel, it may be, who is put into office without the sanction of the Senate, and, as I insist, in defiance of the Constitution, when to secure him a place a faithful officer is, in the recess of the Senate, removed without cause, except to make room for a partisan of Presidential policy. The Senator says he would require him to take the oath. Does not theSenfrom Ver mont know that there are 100s of traitors in office today that have not taken the oath? Read the documents upon your table from the different Depts and you will find there arehmany in office who have never taken the cat. Sir, it may be that the people of Vermont are in favor of saing to the POTUS, “ ou may remove from Office whomsocver you please, you may put in Office whomsoever you lease, without the constitutional sanction of the Senate, and we are prepared to tax ourselves to pay the salary of the man you put in, though he be a traitor and ready again to conspire to overthrow the government." Sir, it may be that the citizens of Vermont are for that, but the citizens of Illinois are not. I claim not to know the views of the Senators constituents, but I think I know something of those whom I have the honor to represent. The amendment, as originally proposed, related to the filling of the vacancies which existed during the session of the Senate, and which the President would have had an opportunity to fill in the constitutional we the advice and consent of the Senate. hni was the original proposition. The Senfrom Ohio Mr. Susanna; thought it would not do to a opt it in that form because there might be connected with the revenue some officer who was squandering the public money, and if it was necessary to remove him for mal; ructice and put an honest man in his place it would not do to say that the successor appointed under such circumstances should not he paid until he was confirmed by the Senate. In order to meet that objection the amendment. was changed so as to provide that in case of a removal by the President during the recess of the Senate of an officer for any act or omission in violation of public duty, where aperson was apiointed to fill a vacancy thus occasioned he should be paid. The President can if this amendment becomes a law, remove an appoint in case of malfeasance in office, and the appointee will be entitled to his salary. That does not satisf the Senfrom Ver mont. What does e want? He wants the President to be vested with authority to remove withoutcause for partisan purposes, and it maybe for the purpose of aiding to force into congress representatives from States not fit, according to the Senators own showing, to be represented. That is his object in moving this reconsideration. There can be no other. But he tells us the President either has the power to remove, or he has not the power to remove from officc, and if he has the power at all it is unlimited. I do not so understand the Constitution. I do not so understand the practice under the Government. The Senfrom Vermont tells us that from the foundation of the Government this power of the President to remove and appointat pleas urehasbeenrecognized. I wouldliketoinquire of that Senatoriit has been recognized in the Army and Navy. Has it not rather been de nied? Will he point to the clause of the constitution that restricts the power of the President in the appointment and removal of Army and Navy officer s any more than it does in the appointment and removal of civil officers? Has not Congress from the foundation of the government denied the authority of the President to remove, except as provied by law, a very large class of O core, both in the Army and in the Navy? Have we not denied it also in relation to civil Officers? It is not true that the President has from the foundhtion of the government exercised this power adlibitum. I am not disposed to go into that argument. The Senfrom Missouri[Mr. Hnnnsnsos] exhausted that subject the other day. He showed how manv removals had been made under the different Presidents, and I was astonished at the few that were made by the earlier Presidents. I shall not give the arment to show whether the power to remove exists or not. I think that subject has been snfliciently argued. But, sir, if the President has not the authority to remove during the recess of the Senate, as a general proposition, does the Senator deny that we may ove him that authority? I take issue with the Senfrom Vermont as to the authority of Congress in this respect. I insist that we may confer upon the President the power to remove in vacation bylaw and wherever he does make a removal in vacation in pursuance of law and makes an appointment in pursuance of law in vacation, it is properwe should pay the appointee; but because we by statute confer upon the President authority for cause to remove and appoint in vacation, does it therefore follow that without legislation he can remove and appoint in vacation? Why, sir, we confer upon the President this power to appoint officers by creating the office. We establish a new Dept of the Government; we increase the number of judges; we establish a judicial district; and how does the President get authority to a point a judge or a marshal or an attorney? 8 gets it in pursuance of the law that creates the office; it is in pursuance of an act of congress that he gets the power to make the appointments at all. Just so in rerd to the removal and appointment ofinenm cuts in office. We may provide by a statute that for cause he may remove a man from office during the vacation and substitute another in his place, and submit to the Senate when the Senate convenes the question of whether they will advise and consent to the new appointment. Congress may go further. hey may authorize the President to appoint and remove inferior Officers without asking the advice and consent of the Senate, and we have often done so. The Constitution exressly authorizes congress by law to invest the appointment of in erior officers either in the President alone or in the judges of the courts or in any of the heads of Depts; and in par suance of this authority the appointments of various mine r officers alfover the country have been vested in the President alone and heads of Depts. Now, would it not be competent to provide in one of these statutes, when we give him the power of a pointment without cOnsulting us, that he should not have the power of removal without cause?