Mr. JO Now, my friends behind me say he may reappoint again.. I know it, and it is for that reason that I said to him and said to his AttyGen at the last session that cannot be justified by me or by the Senate, and certainly will not be by me, because that ould be to avoid altogether the authority of the Senate; and if he in the case supposed per severed in nominating and appointing again after one or more rejections, it would be in my judgment a very serious question whether that of itself would not constitute a ground for impeachment. If Mr. Madison was right in saying, as I stated to the Senate what was in their recollection before I onlymentioned it for the purpose of bringing it more freshly to their recollection if Mr. .was right in saying that an abuse of the power of removal was a subject for an impeachment, d fortiori is the abuse of the power of appointment in a case in which, if it is submitted to, the whole authority of the Senate becomes a nullity and is set at defiance. I have said so much upon that subject in justification of my own opinion. Now, a word upon the particular amendment offered by my friendfrom Wisconsin. I shall vote against the bill whether that amendment succeeds or not; but the effect of that amendment on the Government would be pretty much the same as the proposition which Mr. Calhoun more than once advocated, and the late Senator Hunter on this floor advocated, of a dual President. There were sectional dissensions sure to continue as long as the cause of those dissensions should exist, slavery. Now, as I trust, there is no cause for them except the temporary causes which have grown out of the late war. But they then existed and it was proposed to have 2 Presidents. It hardly received the support of any of the southern statesmen except the particular gentlemen who proposed it. It was said, and said with a force M. must be obvious to us all, that the executive, to be at all competent to the duties of such an office, must be a unit. There can be no divided executive. The proposition fell. It hardly received a vote. Now, what is to be the result of the amendment suggested by my friendfrom Wisconsin? The President you cannot get clear of that obligation; you cannot take from him that duty, and he cannot absolve himself from that duty is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. How is he to do it? He cannot do it alone. This is a great Government of ours. Its transactions are not the ordinary transactions of a common counting house. They extend not only over all our limits, but they go beyond the limits. We have negotiations with the rest of the world and transactions with the rest of the world, and we are likely to be called into a conflict as we may discharge our duty properly or not toward the other nations of the world at any moment. Suppose he has a SecyState whom he does not trust, either because of some suspicion of want of integrity or a belief that he is incompetent to the duties, or a belief founded upon good evidence that he is for pursuing a foreign policy, that will entangle us with other nations, and perhaps involve us in war and affect our commercial marine; what is he to do with him? Leave him in, says the honorable member; suspend him. What then? What is to become of the negotiations in the mean time? What will foreign nations say? “We have been negotiating with the U.S. upon the assumption that they had a policy; we have acted in good faith; we can only know the President; we know that under the Constitution the SecyState is but his mouth piece; we know, and we have been taught to believe, that it is in his power to shape the foreign relations of the country; and now, when his Secretary has been shaping them and he discovers that he is about by the shape which he has caused them to assume to in volve us in trouble, he turns him out, and the whole negotiation is to begin again.” And when he sends to the Senate his reasons for the suspension under this bill, as he will be obliged to do, and the Senate declares that they are unsatisfactory, this suspended officer becomes again the SecyState. What is the effect of that upon the President so far as the negotiation of which I have spoken is concerned?. He ceases to have any control of it; he is a mere cypher; you might as well not have him. The organ, then, with foreign nations will be a SecyState of the Senate of the U.S., and not the SecyState appointed to be an adviser of the President, and to carry out the policy which the President may think proper and may suppose should be adopted as between ourselves and foreign nations. So in relation to the fiscal concerns. The observations which I have thus curso rily submitted to the Senate are equally applicable to either of the other Depts. the office of the AttyGen. The president finds he has made a o mistake; he has apaman to that office who has proven is o: I will assume a case as strong as that: he has not only not given evidence of competency, but he has demonstrated his incompetency by the opinions which from time to time he has given and by his efforts in the SCOTUS The President sees that the laws, as far as they depend upon the law officer of the Government, are not being executed; the district attorneys having no communication with the President except through the AttyGen, and the marshals acting now under the same authority, are doing what the law does not justify, suing where there is no cause for suit and not suing where suit should be instituted. What is he to do? Suspend the AttyGen? Who is he to get to take the place7Ido not know, for I hope no such man is to be found. I do not believe any man could be found fit for the place who would take the office which he is to hold only during the suspension of the previous incumbent, which may be for but 3 or 4 weeks, for the miserable consideration of the proportion of the salary of the office that he would get during those few weeks. Then what will the President do? His duty is to get clear of an incompetent officer or one believed by him to be incompetent. He cannot get a competent officer under the provisions of this bill, if my friend's amendment prevails. Then the public suffers, suffers sadly. Everything is placed in confusion. No body knows officially what the rights of the U.S. are; nobody knows officially what are the interests of the?. States, and how they are about being sacrificed. Nobody knows, and if anybody did know there would be no remedy for it, how entirely without faithful execution are the laws of the U.S. Then what becomes of the President? Why, in relation to that officer as well as in relation to the SecyState in the case supposed he is made a cipher.