Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senfrom Massachusetts were to throw upon me the decision of the question I do not think I should say that the President ought to kick anybody out of office, but I would say that it is due to himself, due to the men who supported him, due to the safe execution of the office that he should place in a reasonable number of the public offices men who sympathize with him; and that was the judgment of the late Administration which the Senator supported. But now, when we come to understand the facts, we find that only 450 out of 2,000 450 or about that number of office holders have been removed, leaving nearly 2,000 men in office opposed to the President or supposed to be opposed to him, and he having called into office only about 450 of his friends to support him. This the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts calls the “misconduct” of the President. If the Senator had confined his remark to the 2 cases which have been referred to, where the President after the adjournment of the Senate appointed men who had been rejected by this body, I should have no criticism to make upon his argument. I think that when the judgment of the Senate is expressed upon any nomination that judgment ought not to be reversed by the Executive; but as a question of law I understand the President took the opinion of the AttyGen, a very accomplished gentleman, high in the profession to which he belongs, an ornament to the western bar, an ornament of which we are all proud; and the esent AttyGen, I understand, gave it as his opinion that the action of the Senate did not disqualify the party for an appointment after the so I think it would have been proper for the AttyGen to have gone jthe question of law and to have said to the President that he owed it to the judgment of the Senate not to appoint a man who had been rejected for that particular office. The legal right and the power of the President under the Constitution to make those 2 apointments I believe has not been questioned. any Senator. On the question of propriety I agree with the Senators who have expressed the opinion that such appointment ought not to be made; and if Senators wish to prevent them in the future and will present a resolution expressing the sentiment of the Senate upon that question I shall have no objection to vote for it and let it be known as the opinion of the Senate that a man once rejected by the Senate shall not after the adjournment be appointed to that office. I think he ought not to b;e but certainly the facts stated by the Senfrom Pennsylvania on that particular question in reference to the appointment of the postmaster at StLouis and the revenue officer at Philadelphia ought to be considered by the Senfrom Massachusetts before he passes a harsh judgment upon the President even upon those cases. But this bill has very little relation to that particular subject. It goes into the whole matter and undertakes to regulate the exercise of this constitutional power on the part of the President from 1st to last. And now, without referring to the justice and right of the thing, I ask Senators if it is well, because there is a difference of opinion between the President and the Senate, that the Senate shall undertake to take from the President any power which the Constitution confers upon him It is too late now to question the power of the President on the subject of removals from office. A uniform practice of so many years does not leave it an open question. It is a settled question, settled, I believe, by every dept of the Government. It was settled, I think, by the legislative dept at the 1st session of congress. It has been settled by the uniform action of the executive dept. I think it has been settled also by the judiciary, by the power of the Supreme Court upon a claim made by the judges in one of the Territories after they had been removed from office by the President. I have not had occasion to look to that case for some time, and I cannot give the particular facts; but my impression of the decision is that the Supreme Court decided that after removal by the President the parties were not in office and could not claim their salaries.