Mr. DAVIS. The Senator cannot withdraw it while I have the floor; and as I have the floor I will say a word. Mr. President, I was very much gratified by a sentiment that was uttered by the honorable Senfrom Michigan [Mr. owann] in the conclusion of his remarks. It was to this effect, that the Senate should remind the SecyTreasury and all other officers that the highestduty of an officer was obedience to the law. I certainly approve fully that truth, and I think that that esson could be studied with very great advantage by the members of the Senate, and particularly by the Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNEH.] He s cake to the same effect, and with all his peculiar and distinctive emphasis, that the Secretary ought to be admenished that it is his duty to observe and to have executed the law. How often has the Senator, from Massachusetts within a very few years, proclaimed in relation to the fugitive slave law that he would not execute that law! How often have his people, and men holding high position in office in the State of Massachusetts assumed defiance to the execution of that law of Congress notwithstanding their oaths of office! It is the duty of Congress to pass laws, and it is the province of this branch of Congress to take its part in the act of passing laws; but whose duty is it to execute the laws, or to see that the laws are executed? I ask the Senfrom Massachusetts, what power has the Senate to assume to itself the office of seeing that a law of Congress shall be executed? According to my reading of the constitution, it is the executive function and the duty of the POTUS to see that this and all other laws are executed. When Congress has passed a law, their jurisdiction over the subject matter of the law is functus officio. It“then passes into the hands of another Dept of the Government, and it becomes a function of the President or the chief Executive of the Government of the U.S. to see that the law is executed. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts asks for a remedy. What remedy does be propose? He says there is a law upon the statute Iiook which requires officers to take a particular oath and that the SecyTreasury has dispensed with the enforcement of that law in relation to particular officers, and has, therefore, exercised) a dispensing power. When it is convenient or agreeable to t 10 Senator to have a dispensin power exercised he is very willing to have it exercised, but in no other state of case. How many laws have been dispensed with during this war in accordance With the feelings on purposes of that honorable senator and to which dispensation he has given his full sanction and approbation Mr. President, I thin it would be ucrile to re enact the clause of the law to which the Senator refers, and which he wishes to have re enacted by his amendment. Why? If the SecyTreasury will not execute one law, he would not execute another law on the same subject if another law should be piled on that one. What additional obligation would there be upon the SecyTreasury to execute this law, if the Senators amendment should be adopted by the Senate and accepted by the HoRep? None. Is the case without a remedy 7 Not at all. Whose duty and whose office is it to see that this law is executed? It is that of the President. The President may require the Secretary to execute the law, and if the Secretary is contumacibus and refuses to execute the law, the President may remove him. That is one remedy. There is another remedy. If it is objected that these officers are executing the functions of their respective places without having taken that oath, let the Senfrom Massachusetts, or any man who chooses, sue out a writ of quo warranto against them to know by what authoritv they are executing those Offices. That is a p ain remedy. There may be still another remedy. Suppose the Senfrom Massachusetts resorts to the courts of the country and asks for a writ of mandamus directed to 1; eseofficers to take the oath which, he says, they have omitted to take. Why, sir, the legal and ap. propriate remedies for such. a case are strewed a laround the Senator. All that he or any gentleman has to do is to resort to these appropriate constitutional remedies. But instead of that he comes into the Senate and asks the Senate to undertake the office of seeing that the law of Congress is executed, 1when the Senate has not a figment of power to any such and I suppose thatif this amendment should prevail, the matter would have just the same legal effect and no more, even if it should become a part of the new law, that it now has. It seems to me to be supererogation, and to be, on the part of the Senate, infringing upon the execu.tive functions of the Government of the U.S. in regard to the execution of its law, to take. the resort action in furtherance of the motive which the honorable Senator has as signed. For myself, therefore, if the question shall be pressed upon this amendment, I shall vote against it.