Mr. GUT RIE. Mr. President, I think this amendment is in bad taste, and particularly at this time. When a proposition of this kind was 1st presented I was asked if I made the charge that it was an attempt to curtail the Presidents power. I told him that I did not; my charge was that it was carryin out the vindictive spirit of some one in the ody who wanted to prevent particular persons from being appointed to fill the place of certain persons now enjoying Office and emoluments after their term should be over. But he has amended it now so as to deny a right heretofore conceded, and to make it really an nssailment of the power of the President and a denial to his appointees of the reward of office to which every man is entitled who discharges the duties ofoffice. My objection to this measure is that the question was settled in 1789, settled when a;real many of the men who had participated inmaking the Constitution were here in congress, settled at the instance of Mr. Madison, who, perhaps, better understood the Constitution than anyone else, and who regarded the power of removal as a power incidental to the executive duties which the Constitution conferred upon the President. This power of removal was no uiese ed in during the administration of Waslhington. I think the Senfrom Wisconsin attributes more deference to Washington on the part of Congress than was felt or acted upon. However that may be, the power was exercised by Jefferson, by Madison. byMonroe, and by A ams, in a greater or less degree. It has been the settled doctrine of the Constitution since 1789 to the present time. My objection to this species of legislation is that it is an attempt to change the settled construction of the Constitution. which has been acted upon and sanctioned by the American people: it is a revolution in relation to the appointing and removing power, a civil revorlution inaugurated by the members of Congress who go back and criticise the action of their predecessors in coming to the resolution arrived at in 1789, and it is done obviously and clearly because these gentlemen do not agree that the President shall not have the power of removing certain men who support them and their measures in opposition to him. We all know that there are very few of them who, when they come to make a speech, can deny it. I am very sorry for the difference that has grown up between the President and Congress upon the subject of reconstruction. I was prepared to take the Presidents recommendations. I was disposed to consider that the result of the battle field had given us full and fair guarantees. From the action of those States in electing Legislatures and changing their constitutions; from their sending representatives to the Senate and to the other House and asking admission into these Hulls, I was disposed to take them on the credit of the acts they had done; to take them as sincere men; to take them as our generals on the field were prepared to take them, and forget and forgive the past. I believed we could do more with them for the Union and for the prosperity of this nation while they were in this body and consulting with us, and in the daily performance of acts of kindness toward each other and to our respective sections, than we could do by keeping them out and abusing them and declaring a distrust of them. I still think it would have been better if we could have come together and agreed. I charge no man with willfully doing these things to keep them out, and to keep them in a conquered position; butI know that is the deliberate opinion of the gentleman who last spoke that we should do so, for he proposed to (put them under territorial governments an to provide from the Treasury of the U.S. for the expense of maintaining territorial governments for the people of these 11 States. I have no doubt he is sincere in his opposition to the policy of the President and in his desire to curtail the presidents power; but I was glad to hear him say that if he was POTUS he would exercise this power which all Presidents have exercised, I do not believe he loves his enemies any better than he loves his friends; and he has said that he would stand by his friends. I am unwilling to change by vote of mine or to sanction a change of the construction of the Constitution in this particular as it has existed ever since the ays of Washington and has been exercised by all the Presidents. There may be dangers, there may be incon veniences in adherin to it; but I believe this Government cannot be carried on successfully and advantageously without the power of removal being invested in the Executive. I believe the power of Congress and public sentiment will alwn s restrain the Executive in the direction in which he ought to be restrained. I advise and counsel no unjust or impro or deference to the President; but I do advise that we will let the landmarks settled by our fathers and adhered to by all succeeding Administrations stand where we found them. I do not want to put it in the power of the President to say that Congress is making war upon him by denyiii to him a power that all the Presidents of the fiU.S. have exercised, or curtailing it as far as possible. I have no doubt that Congress could have passed a law authorizing the President to fill any vacancies that might occur, and then it would have been proper to let it go on as it has gone on without law upon the assumption that it came within the class of cases enumer ated in the Constitution. I shall vote against the amendment because I am unwilling to change the settled construction of the Constitution in this particular. I am not willing to set the precedent of making war upon the President and curtailing a power that has been exercised by all the Presidents of the U.S. in a.greater or less degree.