Mr. COWAN. I rise, sir, merely to correct what seems to be a misapprehension of honorable Senators as to the number of persons removed by the President during the past year. In the debate the day before yesterday the honorable Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,) and I am sorry he is not in his seat, made this statement: “Mr. Shrm{AN said the bill contemplated nothing that was unconstitutional. It simply asserted the right of the Senate to a share in the appointing power, as provided in the Constitution. The opponents of the bill had characterized it as revolutionary. He could see nothing revolutionary in it. He agreed that it was important to guard against the contingency of A vacancy in office, but he believed this bill did so. If Mr. HENDRicks' amendment was adopted, he feared the President would continue to reappoint men who had been rejected by the Senate,0f the 2,000removals made by the President since last sum mer not 100 had yet been reported to the Senate. If the amendment of Mr. HENDRicks were dopted, the President would continue to. names, withhold and reappoint them after the adjournment. In several casesthe President had reappointed men rejected by the Senate. This was the case with the postmasterat StLouis, and with the collector at IPfhiladelphia and internalrevenueofficerselsewhere. try he [Mr. SHERMAN]believed the President would to harmonize with the Senate, and send in other names after his nominees had been rejected, he would be willing to let him fill vacancies during the recess; but the President had manifested no position.” such disNow, sir, it appears upon an examination that the whole number of offices within the gift of the President amounts to 2,000 434. He has that number of appointments; and the whole number of removals amount to 400 46. I mean civil offices. I suppose it will not be contended here that there is any especial Virtue in a simple majority which entitles it to the offices. 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 those 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. Now, I suppose it is fair enough to assume that at the commencement of last year these 2,000 434 officers were all members of the dominant party.