Mr. LeBLOND. And my colleague might add with equal truth the Constitution. The conclusion that we upon this side have come to in regard to this matter is, that the whole object of this bill is to the Executive of any appointing power. They seem to have a controversy upon the other side of the House as to the best mode of accomplishing that ob?o The bill as originally introduced provides or 3 sessions of Congress. It is now proposed to strike that out and let the session commence upon the 4th of March and continue until the next session commences. Well, sir, so far as these 2 propositions are concerned, I feel no particular interest in either of them, because the result of the adoption of either of them will be the same; but I judge that the country does feel an interest in this matter, and they are not willing that this Congress shall make any change in the present law so as to keep a perpetual session of congress. It is unnecessary and uncalled for, and the expense that will attend it no man can cal culate. The people at the proper time will feel these things, and I judge will act upon the matter in such a way as will not be very satisfactory to those who favor this system of legislation. And now all I desire is that gentlemen opposite will simply come out and make the thing plain, so that the people may understand it, i. instead of legislating in the manner they do, say at once that we will have no Executive, but that we have merely a tenant at your will in the White House and with no appointing power, but that the Senate of the U.S., so long as it shall remain radical, shall have the appointing power. This is not the only bill looking to that end. There is already a proposition pending here, whereby the appointing power is proposed to be taken from the Executive and given to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Now, I think it would be well enough, and I make the suggestion here, for the SecyInte rior to appoint the Chief Justice of the U.S. instead of the Chief Justice appointing certain officers in that Dept of the government. Sir, I can see nothing but mischief to result from this system of legislation. If gentlemen are going to legislate in this way, I would much rather they should at once bring forward a bill to strike off the head of the Executive, for then the country would understand it. We upon this side of the Chamber have no interest in this contest. not the least, beyond sustaining the Constitution and free Government. The President is not the man of our choice; we did not put him where he is. We claim no basefits from him; certainly we received none from him in the late campaign. [Laughter]