Mr. WILLEY. Mr. President, I have long entertained the opinion that the appointing power, and especially the power of removal from office by the Executive of the U.S., was a very dangerous power, liable to abuse, and that if it could be constitutionally done there should be restrictions placed upon it. My opinion in reference to that subject is not the result of recent events connecting themselves with that question, but it has been one long entertained. I. believe that it is contrary to the theory of our Government, dangerous to its integrity and to the proper balances of the coordinate branches; and I was very glad that owas introduced for the purpose of applying, if possible, some proper limitations on the exercise of that power. I think it is demoralizing as it now stands, or rather as it has been exercised in times past, both upon the Executive and upon the people, furnishing motives of corruption on the part of the Executive,of him for political or personal purposes to the abuse of the power which the the Constitution seems to have placed in his hands, and especially in that construction given to it by prescription and by usage. On the other hand, it is very demoralizing upon the people, upon the electors. I am not going into the question and did not rise to discuss it particularly, but to express my regret that the Senfrom Vermont did not adhere to his original bill, and resist attaching to it any of those appendages which Senators are essaying to put upon it. I should like to see the broad proposition carried out by some general provisions; but I apprehend very much that the proper operation of the principle will be embarrassed, if not destroyed, by attempting to place upon it these various mine r restrictions and penalties to which Senators have alluded. It does seem to me that it is derogatory to the character and office of the POTUS to attempt to surround him or those under him with these little pains and disabilities which have been suggested in the amendments offered by senators; and however much the power may be abused in the hands of the Executive, I think the only punishment commensurate with the dignity of the executive office, when a corrupt abuse of it really exists, is that already provided in the Constitution, impeachment that and nothing less. But, sir, I rose principally to notice some of the remarks which the Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. CowAN] made yesterday while he was discussing the pending amendment. That Senator then said: “No man can give any reason why 300,000 voters in a State should have all the offices in the State, while 295,000 voters in that State have no offices at all. Not even these who assail the President most sternly and unrelentingly, I think, will, argue that there is any justice and any propriety in that. If these offices belong to anybody and for any other purpose than the public service itself, and if there is to be any rule adopted for the guidance of the appointing power, perhaps that practice is just as good as any other; but the minority would be entitled to its share as well.” I confess to some surprise when that honorable Senator made his statement as to the number of removals from office during the last year. I have no means of knowing the precise number. I take it for granted, however, that the statement of the Senator is correct. He hjeacst.doubtless informed himself upon that subI had formed my opinion in relation to it from what was transpiring around me. Allow me to say to the Senator today that there is but one single civil officer appointed by the POTUS }. WestVirginia left in office this day who is in accord with the policy of Congress, or who is not in accord with the policy of the POTUS, and he is a consul abroad. Every officer in the revenue dept in WestVirginia has been removed but one, and he has changed his opinion from what we there term loyalty into favor of the policy of the POTUS A. there are but 4 men holding civil office today, among presidential appointees, in WestVirginia, who have not been removed by the POTUS during the last year. There has been a universal removal: so all officers have been swept away. if, then, the remarks of the Senfrom Pennsylvania be true, that there ought at least to be a fair division, I ask him, upon his own principles, whether there has not been an abuse of i. executive power so far as WestVirginia is concerned? The Senator on that occasion further remarked, as follows: “I think I may say I know something about how these removals were made, some of them, and why they were made. I have no difficulty in standing here in my place and saying that all the removals that I know to have been madeby the President were of Magmisetnrawteho had no respect not only for the Chief of the nation, not only for the nation itself, but I thought for themselves. Senators are certainly aware that within the last year a great ldaenagluoafge exceedingly offensive, gross, unwarranted has been made use of toward the POTUS I am satisfied that there is not an honorable Senator here who would not that where an office holder, for whose conduct the president was responsible, was guilty of that kind of improper language and want of respectto his superior officer he should be removed.” My experience in WestVirginia and my observations there have taught me that the President has been actuated by no such motives. If am to look to his acts and to the antecedents of his appointees, I must say that he seems to have taken special pains to select from the many respectable gentlemen who have thought it their duty to support his view of the administration of the Government, those very gentlemen who have been loudest and grossest and foulest in their abuse of the POTUS. am not going now to bring into the Senate of the U.S. matters of a private character, where the parties who have been guilty of uttering this language cannot have an opportunity of defending themselves; but I will select a gentleman who has been appointed to one of the most important and entirely the most lucrative office in the State of WestVirginia, who has spread his views at large, who is the editor of a paper, and in his own paper has ublished to the world his views of the presient of the U.S., and I will avail myself of this opportunity to show to the Senfrom Pennsylvania that the POTUS in selecting men to office has been actuated by no such motives as those to which he refers. I shall read extracts from the paper of the gentleman to whom I allude, a gentleman appointed to the mostlucrative office in the State of WestVirginia, and here they are.