Mr. LeBLOND. I wish to offer a few remarks in reference to this proposition. It is curtailing the powers of the Secretary. It is akin to the proposition disposed of by the House in a very summary and unheard of manner but a few moments ago. Sir, this system of legislation I for one feel it my duty in my my humble capacity to oppose, and I do so in good faith and not with any captious disposition. Who is best qualified to know the character of persons that are serving under another; their capacity to discharge their duties and their worth as officers in the Dept? None so well as the men who have. of the Depts. This same principle prevails through out your whole Government. There is no one who knows better the worth of an officer and his faithfulness to the Government than the man who has the appointing power, or who is chief executive over a certain class of these officers. He has control of them and he should make the appointment. There are gentlemen here who in the last political contest went over the country saying that a certain party was a “bread and butter brigade.” What evidence have we had of the truth of the assertion on this floor? It is a struggle on the part of these men who shall hold these offices and strip the Executive of the appointing power. Who constitute the “bread and butter brigade?” Why, sir, the very constitution is stricken down, all the powers that have been conferred upon the POTUS and exercised since the foundation of the Government are to be upturned, and for what? For the purpose of saving the “bread and butter” to the party here who seek to control matters in their own way, right or wrong. Sir, sound policy and economy require that the power of appointing these officers should be in the President. It has been so exercised by all the Executives from President Jackson down to the present time. There never was a time in the history of the American Republic when so many officers' heads fell as during the 3 months when General Harrison was POTUS That fact has become history. Did you find the yo then in power saying it was wrong? Did you find the opposition o legislating against the Executive for the purpose of retaining patronage? No, sir. The party then in power adhered to the policy that had been inaugu rated because it was wholesome. Did you find any of the gentlemen on the other side complaining during the administration of president Lincoln because he removed Democrats? Not a word of complaint emanated from that side. Everything was right. But now, when the present Executive, a man of their own choice, seeks to exercise that power and to use the patronage for the purpose of carrying out constitutional measures, you find these very men rising up here and complaining of the Administration for the exercise of lawful power. Now, the contest goes on as to who is to have this “bread and butter brigade.” Well, sir, from the strides that are being taken by the dominant party in this House I think there is no question where it will rest. My colleague [Mr. BINGHAM) has even thrown out an intimation if I understand him aright, and I call his attention to it that removals for political reasons are to be considered as corruption in office. He spoke of removals for cause and removals for disability, but did not allude to the other class of removals. That leaves it to be inferred that where the Executive removes for political considerations it is corruption in office.