Mr. HENDERSON. If it weakens him, then let the Senate thus strengthen the President. If that be so, I am in favor of strength ening the President. The Senator insists that by leaving this power in the hands of the President we weaken im. Then Iwillchange my course of policy, and I will attempt to strengthen the President. I will at least say that the Senate of the U.S. ought to have some con, trol over these otfiees. I have no prejudice against the POTUS I iffer with him in policy. After an examina iqn of this question, and I think I have come to the conclusion conse ientiously, I believe that the Senate has a right to say when a man is to beremoved from a public Office. I believe that the Senate is a part of the appointing power, and that it is also a part of the removing power. There is no power in the Executive to remove any man when once in office unless he gets the consent of the Senate thereto. Mr. Webster was supposed to be almost as bed a constitutional lawyer as Mr. Madison. Mr. Webster made a speech in this same discussion in 1835. an extract from which I will read, and to which I call the attention of the Senfrom Maryland. He asked me to show it. to him. I have it in my hand: "After considering the question again and again within the last 6 years I am willing to say that, in my deliberate judgment, the original decision was wrong. That was the decision of 1789, from which I have read: “I cannot but think that those who denied the powerin 178.h)ad the best of the argument; it appears tome.after thorough and repeated and conseientious examination, that an erroiieoiis interpretation WH3 I1 IVtCoTtIhe Constitution. in this respect. by the decision of the 1st. Congress." It is unnecessary to read from other portions of this speech. this certainly a very able argument, and one which I think as clearly sustains the position which I assume as the argument of Mr. Calhoun. They were certainly both able, as also the report of Mr. Calhoun made in 1835. The amendment of the Senfrom Illmots is in these words: SEO. Ami Abife:. That no person exercising or performin or undertaking to exercise or perform the duticso any officewllltll by law is requiredto be filled by the adviceand consent of the Senate shall before confirmation by the Senate, receive any salary or compensation tor his 881113 unless such person be commissionedby the Preside to fill up a vacancy which has happened by deat resi nation, or expiration of term during the recof the Senate and since its last adjournment. The Senator evidently intends to refuse ay ment to the successors of those men who 5 all be removed without cause by the President. That is the meaning of it. It can have no other meaning. Now, as I suggested to the Senator this morning and in much that the Senfrom Ohio said I agree I think that in arran ging a law of this character we ought to cover the whole question, and we ought to provide for a temporary suspension by the President. We ought to provide for the filling up of those othees, notice of vacancies in which will not reach us before the adjournment. Otherwise much inconvenience may arise. A” man may die in Oregon, and we may have no notice of the vacancy before our adjournment. The President ought to have the power, in a case of that sort, to fill that vacancy before the next session; and even if we do not agree to give our advice and consent to the nomination, that man having discharged the duties of the office ought to be paid. There are many incon veniences that Will arise under this provision. The Senfrom Ohio has pointed out some of them. I can conceive of many, but if it is insisted upon, if we must have a vote, I would rather adopt this provision and take those in conveniences than to adopt the inconvenience to arise after our adjournment, of the removal of every man nuless he will become a fawner to the Administration, a supple tool of the Administration, and unless he will promise his support to it. I say that is corrupting. it is known in this country that no man, when once in office, can be removed exec t by imseachment in this body, or by a vote of this bo y, then there will be a sense of inde end enec and security that will enable each and every man in this broad land to feel that he is not dependent on the one man power. We shall have better officers in consequence of it. We shall have men who feel that they can discharge their duties free and independent of the power of the Executive to remove them without consultation with any other branch of the GOvernment. Why, Mr. President, this power has become alarming in this country. It is high time that Senators should consider it. I do not allude to it simpl because I differ with the President now for that difference has not carried me, I think, he ond rudence or discretion. I doi" differ with the resident. I would that that difference did not exist. I have not carried that difference beyond this Senate Chamber. I have said nothing against his course of conduct. though I thin much may be said arainst it. If this power is to be left in the hands, not only of the present Executive. but for all time to come, in the hands of other Executives, when there are such a large number of olticcs to be filled, and such a large number of officers now holding pesitions under the Government, and it is known that the Executive can control them free of any let or hinderance on the part of any other Dept of the Government, I say it confers upon him apower that is dangerous to the liberties of this country. I do not apprehend that anything of the sort would be undertaken, but I see that the news papers throrwhout this country now are advising the POTUS to expel i this body from their places, to act the Cretan well and drive us out.