Mr. JOHNSON. It is a mere h pothesis. I am sure there is no member of the Senate less likely to occasion a war with the President than the honorable member from Illinois; but this has a little squinting that way; and, unfor tunatelv, perhaps, he does not see it. [Laughter.] f the Senate will indulge me until I find the letter to which I have adverted, I will read it as hearing more persuasively upon the question which I think is involved than I am sure would be the effect of anything I could say. While my friend behind me, Mr. Iesnnnsox to whom I have turned overt e book, is searching for the letter, let me say a word on the question what will be done by the proposed amendment. i The honorable member from Illinois tells the Senate that it raises no such constitutional question as [have suggested. If it does not, t iere is certainly no necessity for the amendment. If what it proposes to nce om lish is that which the law now accomplishes, there is no occasion for the amendment. If it leaves the appointing power precisely as free as it is now, there is no occasion for teamendment. But as the amendment is offered upon the hypothesis that the law as it now stands will not accomplish what the amendment proposes to accomplish, the question is whether it does not seek to accomplish something which interferes with the appointing power of the President. Now, does it not? Since it was settled in 1789 nobody has ever seriously questioned that the President has the right to remove. Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay during the exciting periods to which I have adverte, while president Jackson was at the head of the Adminis tration, suggested that there was a serious doubt whether the original decision was a correct one; but as well as I remember, both of them, and particularly Mr. Webster, admitted that it was too late to question the constitutionality of that decision. What Congress did in the act to which my friendfrom Illinois adverts was done under the clause of the Constitution which gives the authority to provide for the mode in which officers whose appointments are not provided for in the Constitution may be appointed. That is all; but this goes a stones throw be ond that. I understand the honorable member from Illinois now as avowing that his purpose is to deny to the President the power to appoint during the recess of the senate, but that he does not mean to deny his power to remove. What is the benefit of the power to remove unless there exists in connection with it the power to a point? What is the effect of the removal? I}; it to get rid of the incum bent? The grant upon which the power was originally claimed, and was established, was important to the interests of the Government that there should be a right to remove. To ive the President the power to remove, and to deny him the power to appoint, is to leave the Governmentunrepresented in its several administrative Depts, to leave Offices unfilled. Is the Senate irepared to do that? What is the President to o? I have no more knowledge of the purpose of the President than any member of the Senate; it is not my good fortune to see him except very seldom, and that upon mere matters of business; but what is he to do? Iflie be the man that his friends suppose him to be, and that his whole life proves him to be, he is a man of firmness moral as well as physical firmness. Suppose he is of opinion that it is the purpose of Congress to war upon him. by taking from him the power to remove, not by taking it from him directly, but by de nying to those whom he shall appoint in place of those that he removes, compensation, what will he do? He will remove and not appoint. Then, what are you to do? Impeach him? If you do, what will be his defense? “ My power to remove has been settled from the organization of the Gavernment down to the time of our attempted indirect interference with it. Ton do notdeny my power to remove directly; what you prepose to do is, to deny ayinent to any cllicer whom I may appoint. ou claim that right. So far as power is concerned, you have the power, because no money can be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, and you have the power to deny the appropriation. What then? I remove not withstandin; I will not let a dishonest otheer be in; I will not let an incompetent otheer be in; I will not leta inau who revilcs me be in;” and no President from the beginning of the Governmentto this time, ever has. “I remove such aman; Itry to fillhis office, but I can get nobody to take his place because you say you will not ay whoever may take his place, and what is t in result? The wheels of Government are stopped, and I make an issue with congress before the people. Whose fault is it? Is at mine, or is it the fault of Congress?” But, independent of all, Mr. President, I submit to my friends who are in favor of this measure, if any are in favor of it, except the mover of the amendment. what possible good is there to be aceoin lished? I speak it in no party spirit, for if know myself am not under the influence of party spirit, and in the present condition of the country I cannot be made to feel under the influence of party spirit. I ask, in the present condition of the country, what good is to be accomplished by carrying on an apparent war with the President, domg what has never been done in relation to any of his predeces sors? What is the condition of the country? The war against rebellion over; the Union still practically dissolved; and what are the signs of the times? The SecyState has told us that he has instructed our minister atVienna to ask for his passports if any Austrian troops are sent to the aid of the tottering empire of Maximilian. No doubt they will be sent. Then I suppose the Austrian minister here will ask for his assports. What are we to do?