Mr. HOWE. I rise more to repudiate an imputation thrown out by the Senfrom Vermont in the outset of his remarks than for any other purpose. I must protest now and always against the imputation that what I say on this bill or any other is dictated or animated at all by my personal or my political resentments. I have had occasion to disclaim that once or twice before. I know, sir, that I am engaged here in debating a proposed amendment to the law of the land; and I want that law when it is agreed upon, if I like it I shall like it a little if you pass it as it is; I shall like it better if you put this amendment upon it I want it to remain on the statute book, not merely to the end of President Johnson's administration, but to the end of the Administration that shall succeed his, and all succeeding Administrations. I am legislating for no particular Administration. And I want to say further right here that if I am animated by any resentment at all, which I do not think is the case, it is directed as little toward the President as it is toward myself and those who surround me here. He has done things in the exercise of this prerogative which I think ought not to have been done; but the things he has done we left here at the end of the last session knowing that the authority was in his hands to do; and he had, not our consent to do the particular things, but he had knowledge o that we adjourned the lawmaking power of the Government without taking from him the power to do these things, and we are as much responsibleas he is for what he has done. So, then, I am not one who is trying to gratify ore sentment I have against the POTUS Mr. President, the Senfrom Vermont says it is not the purpose of this bill to say who shall or who shall not be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; it is the purpose of this particular bill to say how those officers who happen to be appointed by and with the advice and consent opthe Senate shall be treated after they are appointed, or how hey shall be disposed of. Now, if it be the of this bill merely to assert a constitustral principle and not to give it any practical effect whatever, the Senfrom Vermont is entirely right; but I do not suppose he would really call upon the Congress of the U.S. to discuss and deliberate upon a measurewhich was not intended to have a practical effect. So that when he is trying to assert the right of the Senate to be consulted in the removal of a man who has been appointed with its consent, I suppose he means to throw protection over some actual existing officer; and he would not try to do that if he did not know that there were some officers thus appointed who were liable thus to be oThen that is the practical effect that his bill is to have. If that is a beneficent effect, its beneficence will be precisely in proportion to the number of officers who are included within its protection; and if you adopt this amendment the number of officers under its protection will be greater than it is now. They say it will be too great because it will include too many officers. Is that so? But, Mr. President, the Senfrom Vermont undertook to be facetious over the lolea