Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, this debate is getting a little interesting. For the 1st half day I did not eare much about it; but if it lasts a day or two longer I think I shall be profoundly interested in it. The Senfrom Pennsylvania has contrived to lend a charm to it that I did not suppose it was capable of. I supposed the question presented to the Senate on the report of this conference committee was simply whether we should concur in that report or not; but I understand from the Senfrom Pennsylvania that it involves us in a breach of faith to begin with, and 2nd ly, that it involves us in revolution. These are 2 pretty strong objections; and for fear that neither of them would hold good, the Senator, I believe, sets up a counter claim, and wants to set off against the indignity contained in the letter of our minister at Portugal what be considers the indignity offered to the POTUS in a dispatch sent from a Governor of Tennessee. Mr. President, there is no violation of the public faith, there is no breach of a contract involved in our withholding the salary of the minister to Portugal or of any other officer holding office under the Government of the U.S. Every such man holding Office, holds it, not upon the contract that he shall have it for any given time, nor upon the contract that he shall have any given amount of pa: but he holds it and all men know he holds it simply until he is removed from it, and for such pay as the law may from time to time provide and appropriate. The President has the power to terminate his right to a dollar's salary any day by removing him. The Congress has the power to terminate his right to any given amount of salary by decreasing it or increasing itdmy day, and has the power to terminate his right to get any salary by with holding the appropriation. These are the conditions under which every man holds office. There is no violation of contract when the President removes him. There is no violation of contractwhen Congress increases or diminishes the pay; and none when they withhold the appropriation. This power was reserved to congress for the express purpose of securing to the public service, to the service of the people, such conduct as should be appreciated and approved by them. It is for that reason that while your President can appoint officers, he cannot pay any of them a dol ar. It is for that reason that every dollar that goes to anyone of your officers must be appropriated by congress; and that these appropriations may come most directly from the representatives of the people, you cannot originate a bill to a re, riate a dollar to anybody, either in the its house orin the Senate, but only in that branch of the Legislature which stands nearest to the people. Sir, there is no violation of contract here. Is there anything revolutionary? The Senfrom Pennsylvania stands here in his seat and cautions us a inst an act of this kind because the public mind is feverish and all men are predicting revolution and violence and disturbance, and that it is our businessto avoid every thing that will lead to these results. Has the Senfrom Pennsylvania taken the course best calculated to avoid these results? Who predicts revolution and insurrection? Who threatens it? Neither these predictions nor these threats have ever come from me or from those with whom I net. But, sir, is it true that revolution hangs upon the question whether we pass an appropriation to pay Mr. Harvey or not? Has it come to this, that the Congress of the U.S. cannot withhold a year’s salary to Mr. Harvey without subjecting the country to the dangers of rebellion and insurrection again? 6 years ago, I know, we were industriously taught that we could do scarcely anything without endangcring rebellion; we could notvote for one law or another, or for one man or another scarcely without subjecting ourselves to the danger of arebellion. I thoughtwe had got over that. I thought the time ad come when the people conld vote for such representatives as they pleased, and that their representatives could vote for such laws as the pleased, subject only to the power of the judicial tribunals to set aside their laws when they violated the Constitution, and subject to the right of the sovereign people to set aside their representatives when they disapproved them. If that time has not come, let us pray for it a little Ion Mr. It will come by and by. his. President, I am going to vote for this report. I am going to take the responsibility of approvin it. I do not vote for it because the House 0 Representatives has forced us to take it. I do not vote for it in order to save the appropriation bill. I vote for it because I think it is a proper thing to do. One of the public servants, holding apnblie mission, wrote a letter in which he deliberately ar es that the majority in the Congress of the U.S. are engaged in the work of revolution. I re udinte the idea. I do not think it is just. ut, says the Senfrom I’cnnsylvania, where is the law that prevents him from saying this? There is no such law. Mr. Harvey has an undoubted right to say it. So have you; so has any man a erfect right to say it, if he thinks it; and i he does not think it, he has a right to say it if he is willing to lie. That is all the consequence that attaches to it. But Mr. Harvey’s r|ght to say these things of the Congress of the U.S. is no more clearly sanctioned by the laws of the land than is our right to pay or not to pay Mr. Harvey. If Mr. Harvey would rather say these things than have his salary, let Mr. Harvey say them, in God's name; who objects? But then I ask that the Congress shall have the rightwhieh the constitution gives it to vote this appropriation or not I think our right is just, as clear as that of Mr. Harvey. Let Mr. Harvey talk, if it does him good; let us pay if we approve his talk, and not without. I do not like that kind of talk. IfI had the power of removal in my hands, I think I should remove him. It is not in my hands; and thereforeI will simplywith hold his pa. “ But he may starve.” Starvel Why? “ e cannot support himself in Portu l; he is away from home.” Let him come ome. Nobody guarantied that he should stay there for all time. All we do is to stop his salary. That would have been done if he was removed from oliice. But it is said that he only uttered these sentiments in a private letter. I am not finding any special fault with him for uttering the sentiments. It is because he has them that Iobject to him. Believing such things, holding such opinions of the Congress of his country, I do not think he is a lit man to represent us abroad, or at home, or anywhere. But as to the fact of its being nprivate letter, where is the evidence of it? It is nowhere stamped with the character of a private letter. He enjoins'upon him to whom it was written no secrecy, no privacy. It is a letter addressed to the SecyState, sent to him unconditionally, without any sort of restriction as to how the Secretary should use it. Then it became the Secretary‘s letter and not Mr. Harvey’s. He had parted with those sentiments and placed them in the possession of the SecyState, and they were just as much the property of the Secretary of State as anything that he rides or drives or owns or cats with. The SecyState saw fit to make it public, to ublish it. I think the SecyState knew lter whether that was a private letter or not than we do; and I do not think these censures are just upon the Secretary and upon the President, wherein they are accused of Violating the l secret character of a confidential correspondence. There is nothing of that about this letter. The letter was put in the possession of the SecyState, containing the senti ments of our minister at Portugal, and he, by the direction of the President, published it. That is all there is of it. That is all the evidence of a confidential character there is to this letter. But, as I said before, I do not condemm him for having the letter published; I do not object to him for publishing the letter; all the objection I have in the world to Mr. Harvey is, that he holds the sentiments which are contained in the letter. True, ifthe letter had not been written, or, if written, had not been published, I might never have known that he held those sentiments; but it is the holding of them that makes him to ine objectionable. It is because he holds them that I think he is not fit to represent us. It is because I think he is not representing us that I shall vote for this provision which withholds from him his pay.