Mr. HENDERSON. I am aware that the Senator will find some excuse for the opinions of Mr. Clay; but Mr. Clav was not alone at that period of time. Mr. Beiitoii, himself, at the time these resolutions were offered, although he claimed to be the champion of the Adminis tration of General Jackson, did not undertake to answer the report which he himself had made in 1827, which I have just read tp the Senate. The Senfrom It Maryland Will of course answer me that Mr. Adams was at that time President; but it was not disputed in 18234that the report made by the leaders of the Democratic party in 1827was not the true doctrine. I will refer the Senator to the opinions of Mr. Calhoun, in a speech delivered in Feb ruary, 1836, which he Will find in the 2nd volume of Mr. Calhouns W orks. However much he may say that Mr. Calhoun was opposed to the Administration, and that his constituttional argument may have proceeded from a dislike of General Jackson, and whatever may be the Senators feelings toward Mr. Johnson, the present President, and his desire to sustain him in this matter, yet I up reliend, when I read a short extract from this constitutional view taken by Mr. Calhoun, he Will find it. much more difficult to answer Mr. Calhounjs arguments than he does to say something in favor of Mr. Johnson. I call the attention of the Senfrom Maryland to this argument of Mr. Calhoun. It is put much better than I could possibly put it. I Will read a short extract from it. It seems to me it is perfectly conclusive: "If the power to dismiss is possessed by the executive. he must hold it in one of 2 modes: citherI by an express grantottho powerin the Constitution or as a power necessary and proper to executesome power expressl granted by that instrument. All the powers under the Constitution may be closed under one or the other of these heads; there is no intermediate class. The 1st questionthen is, has the President the power in question by any expression in the Constitution! He who aflyms he has, is bound to show it. That instrument is in the hands of every member; the portion containing the dele gationof powerto the residentis short. It is comprised in n.few sentences. I ask Senators to open the Constitution, to examine it and to find. if they can, any authority ot the Prestdent to dismiss any lpnblie udieer. hone such eniibo found“ the Consti.tution has beeuearelullyexammed and no onepre.tends to have leuud sueh a grant. Well. then, as there is nonesuch, if it exists at all. it must exist as a powernecessary and proper to exceute some ranted power; but if it eXists in that character, it belongs t to Congre.an ds not to the Executive. I venture not this assertion hastily; I speak on the authority of the Copatitution itselt au express and unequivocal filthtfflty which cannot be denied nor contradicted. ear what that sacred instrument says: conrcss shall have power to make all laws which shal be necessary and proper for carryinginto execution the foregoing powers (those granted to Congressitself.) and all other powersvested by this Constitution in [the Government ot the U.S or in any Dept or officer there of Mark the fullness of the expression. Congress shallhave power to make all laws, not only to carry into cticct the powers expressly delegated to "will, but those deli statedto the overmnent, or any Dept or of the er thereof; comprehending ot course. the power to pass laws necessary and proper to carry into ctle ct the powers expressly granted to the executive Dept. It follows that to whatever express grant of power to the Executive the power of disiiiissal may he been}; esed to attach: whether to that of seeing tholaws pithfully executed, or to the still more comprehen l ivogrant. ase ontendedfor by some, vestingexeeu tave powers in the President. the more tact that it is 5 power appurtenant to another power and necessary to carry itiiito oils ct, transfersit bgstheprovisions of the Constitution cited from the xceutive to Congress and placesit und eirts control, to beregulated in the mannerwhich it mayjudge best.” Again, Mr. Calhoun in this argument says: "Such are the arguments by which I have been forced to conclude, that the power of dismissing is.not lodgedin the PreSident. but is subject to be contrelled and regulated by Congress. I say forced, be eapse have been compelled to the conclusion in.lpite ot my previous impressions. Relying upon the early decision at the question and the long acquiescencein that decision" Referring to the argument in Congress in 1789 “I had concluded, without examination, that it had not been disturbed. because it rested upon principles too clear and strong to admit of doubt. I remained passively under this impression. until it, became necessary.during the last session.to examine the question, when 1 took up the discussionon it in. 1789, wrth the expectation of having my previous impressmn confirmed. The result was different. I was struck. on reading the debate.with the forceof the arguments of those who contended that the power was not vested by the Constitution in the xueutive. To me they appeared to be far more statesmanlike than the opposite or uinents and to partake much moreof the spirit oft 10Constitution. Atter reading this debate.Iturned to the Constitution. which I read With care in reference to the subJqct discusstd.when. tor the 1st time. I was struck With the tall toreeot th clause which I have quoted, and which, in my opinion, toroversettlestho controversy." Mr. President, no man can read the debate 0t 1781), as have done Within the last 2 or 3 days, without coming to the same conleliiSion. Mr. Madison and those who conte iide(l ivith him, it seems to me, were in favor pt leaving this power in the hands of the pres, ident by their legislation simply because they, had entire conhdence in the Father of his country. I have looked at this questionofreine val, and I find that during the whole 8 years of the administration of General Washington, after" this debate in Congress, and after the admission that the power rested in the Executive to make removals without cause, there were but 9 removals made. I do not say that they were made without cause, but I mean there were but 9 removals made by the Executive. Mr. Adams succeeded General Washington, and there were but ten removals during his term of 4 years. Jefferson was in the presulciicy for 8 years, and he removed but 42 men. The whole 8 years of the administration of Mr. Madison show but 3 removals. Mr. Madison claimed the power to must, I admit, as fully as the Senfrom Maryland; but how did Mr., Madison eirercise that power when he had the control of it himself? in the whole 80 ears of his administration he saw fit to make but 3 removals. Mr. Monroe was in the presidency for 8 years, and he made but iiine removals. John Quincy Adams, during his 4 years of administration, made but 2 removals. 40 years of the Government show but 75 removals, not twoa year. But when General Jackson came in, the 1st tyear showed some 230, had after that I believe, some 4 or 5,000d; and from that day to this it has been the continual practice of the Executives to seize upon the othees of this country for the purpose of increasing their power and patron age. When we come to examine the Constitution we clearly come to the conclusion that the jlresident has no power to remove an Officer. Why should he have the power? He may nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate may appoint an officer, but where does he get the power, as was very properly said by Mr. Calhoun, to remove an officer after he has once been placed in office. I know that, a great many inconveniences may be conjured up. I know that in a great many cases it would be very inconvenient indeed to deny the existence of the power. The Senfrom Ohio may ver properly say that if this proposition liould e adopted many inconveniences will arise in some districts in regard to the collection of the revenue. But let us look at it in another point of view. Suppose that the President is a corrupt man, what then? I would that I had time to read from the reports made in 1827 and 1835 upon this subject, wherein they expressed so much distrust, wherein they expressed so much apprehension of dangerin the future arising from this extraordinary power in the hands of the Pros ident. We must recollect that now there is a change in ulfairs; that where there was one office then, there are ten new. Look at the past machinery for the collection of the internalrevenue of the country. Has the President ihe power when we adjourn, to lay his hands upon every collector and every assessor in this broad land and turn him out? If so, I apprehend that Congress exressin a differ once with the Executive will avai nothing. However this Congress may ditler from the President in political desires for the future; whatever may be the conflict between us, that leouflict will not last long; itwill last but a very short time. Can the President, as soon as this Senate shall adjourn, lay his hands upon every {officer in this land, upon the consuls and ministers abroad, and upon the assessors and collectors and all the vast machinery for the collection of the internalrevenue? Can he seize upon all the postoffices in the land? I do not say that he will do so; butI a reheud that if I were the POTUS, nd differed as materially from Congress as he come to differ from us, and I believed I possessed this power, I would do so. I do not uppose that the Picsidentis a better man than am; I do not saythat he is aworse man than am; I a prehend that we are all actuated by be some celings and by the same motives. I of the President the credit to suppose that he acts conse ientiously in his political opinions; and if he does, why should he not undertake o carryout what he terms “my policy?” If 10 lays the heavy hand upon aIl the public Offices in this country, what avails it that the people may speak against him, or Congress may speak against him I.