Mr. Hôo. Undoubtedly those who framed that clause expected the President to ask advice in reference to what he was to do or was not to do, and undoubtedly in reference to those acts he is responsible and must be, let any Secretary advise as he may. It does not follow that because he asks the opinion of the Secretary he is bound to follow it. If his Secretary is unfriendly to him, there is no reason in the world why he cannot criticise the advice the Secretary gives. He naturally would criticise it all the more for the fact that the Secretary was personally unfriendly; but it does not follow because the Secretary is personally unfriendly that he will advise in reference to a public measure dishonestly, for then he damns himself just as surely as he prejudices I should like to ask the the President. It is to be remembered and it is that which I want the Senate to remember that each one of these officers is acting in reference to matters about which the law is explicit; ".discharging duties; and the question is what is or is not a duty. Not one of them, not all of them together, can legislate at all. The law imposes certain duties upon them and the question is what is the spe cific duty: and the President asks the opinion of a Cabinet officer just as my friend's clients take his opinion. “What are my interests?” or “what are my duties?” or “what are my responsibilities?” I take it they are governed by their estimate of his ability, not at all by the question whether they agree with him in political opinion, in determining whether they shall go to him or to some other attorney for advice. It is said that it is essential that there should be harmony, not merely between the President and his ministers, but between the different ministers. Essential to whom? Doubtless essential to the President that he should have the personal support of all his ministers; but is it more essential to the nation, I ask you, that there should be harmony between the ministers and the President than that there should be harmony between the ministers and the people? The Constitution did not provide any such thing. If it had attempted any such thing, if it had wished any such i. it would have said the President may select for his confidential advisers such men as he pleases. The Senate has no business to have any voice in the confirmation of Cabinet officers if it is the purpose of the law to make them the echo of the President. But if the view of the Senfrom Maine is correct, it is not only fatal to my amendment, but it is fatal to the whole bill; it is fatal to the bill as originally introduced, and it is fatal to the whole amendment reported by the committee; for, he insists not merely upon the right of the President to remove a Cabinet minister who is obnoxious to him, but insists upon the right of a Cabinet officer to remove every one of his subordinates for the same reason. It happens, Mr. President, that you have no officer in the public employment who is not either directly the subordinate of the President or directly the subordinate of one or the other of his ministers; and if the Senfrom Maine is correct in his theory, you ought to abandon this bill altogether 3 say, as the practice is, but as the law never was and never ought to be, that the President may remove his Cabinet ministers for such reason as is satisfactory to him, and that they may remove in turn every one of their subordinates; for this is a bill, not as the Senfrom Maine seems to suppose, to vindicate the right of the Senate to confirm the nominations the main purpose of this bill is to regulate the ten ure and to restrict the right of the President to remove from office men who have been confirmed. It was said by the Senfrom Oregon, it was repeated by the Senfrom Maine, that in practice this will have very little effect, because in practice it is said if a Cabinet minister comes to know that he is distasteful to the President he will not wait for an act of removal, but will retire voluntarily. That such cases have happened in the history of the country I suppose is true; but I suppose it is true because you have abandoned the protection of these offices and the protection of these officers, because you have surrendered to the POTUS this control over them. I hold, on the contrary, that the Secretary who leaves an office created by law for the public ". not for the President's good, to which he has been appointed by the President and the Senate,"i. that post of duty merely because the President, one individual of the great number that have to combine in making the appointment, intimates a.". wish that he is derelict to his duty and cannot be commended as a faithful public servant. He has no more right to do it because the President may intimate such a wish than he has to do it because anyone Senator who voted upon his confirmation asks him to do it.