The SPEAKER. The Gentfrom Penn vania, [Mr. Williams, who has charge of the bill, has stated that he proposes to allow general debate after the bill shall have been perfected. No objection being made, the preposition of Mr. GARFTELp was agreed to. The 1st question was upon the following amendment, moved by Mr. k's. Add to the 1st section the following: Protided forther, That this s?n not apply to the heads of the several Executive Depts or their stants, Mr. WILLIAMS, It will be observed the House when they come to look at the amendment which has been moved by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. KAssox, ] that it is a revival of the old question of 1789. It will be recol lected by those familiar with the legislative history of this nation, that in the 1st congress the question was diseassed at great length as to the powers of Congress under the Constitution to associate the Senate with the President in the matter of removals. I think a majority of both Houses, as constituted at that time, would have said that the thingought to have been done if it could be done constitutionally. But it was resisted by Mr. Madison, and the majority sided with him, though it was a small majority a majority of one in the Senate. It was held by Mr. Madison that the power to remove was a power which passed by the general grant in the Constitution, assigning the executive powers of this nation to or lodging them in the POTUS The argument of the minority in that case was that the power to remove was an incident of or necessarily inhered in the power to appoint. Yet the opinion of the majority, as advocated by Mr. Madison, prevailed. Now we all know, and I think no lawyer will dispute the assertion, that the idea of the minority of that 1st Congress has been sustained by the only judicial decision we have since had upon that question, in the case Ezrelatione Heenan, reported in 13 Peters, and familiar of course to all the lawyers of this House. As I have already remarked, we are coming back again to the question which was before the 1st Congress. I think it has always been regarded by the best lawyers of the nation since that time that the decision of Congress in 1789 was wrong. And the opinion has generally prevailed that that decision was obtained in consequence of the weight and influence of the personal character of our 1st Chief Magis trate. Now, in addition to the fact of the preva. lence o f an opinion of this sort since that time, I think I may also say it has been quite a8 generally lamented that any such decision has ever been made., And the desire has been expressed time and time again, by leading mon I think there are prob in both Houses of Congress, to bring the government back to its true principles, by placing this matter of appointment to and removal from office under the control of the people through their Congress. Now, in my mind there is no question that in making these removals, which gentlemen would allow the President to make, he is exercising power that the Constitution never conferred upon him. As I remarked, this is the very question which arose in the 1st congress. Unfortunately the decision was then made one way, and we propose now to reverse it upon the 1st opportunity that has eyer been presented to us, and the last perhaps that may ever be offered in our history as a nation.