Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I should like to simplify the question before the Senate, which, it seems to me, the learned Senfrom Maryland has done more to perplex than to explain. I say that, of course, with great respect to the learned Senator. It is said that the fox, when pursued, cunningly contrives to throw his pursuers of the scent, and it did seem to me as I was listening to the Senator, that he was imitating that sagacious animal. He was trying to throw the Senate oli the scent, and now, sir. my simple purpose will be to bring the Senate back upon the scent. The Senator very ingeniously reminded you of our relations particularly with Austria, and he opened before us prospects which under his powerful description were calculated certainly to awaken the attention and the interest of the Senate. I share, sir, the solicitude of that Senator with reference to the question to which he has referred, but I beg to remind the Senate that it surely can have nothing to do with this question. Whatever may be our relations with Austria, or with any European Power, I know not how those can alfect our decision on the simple question now before us. Then. again, sir, there is another question of great importance, which the Senator has introduced, and which is, to a certain extent, I admit, germane to this question. I mean that question so much discussed in the early history of our country, and which has never been entirely out of mind, to what extent the Senate may share with the President the power of removal. The Senator opens that question on this occasion. as if that was in issue in the amendment proposed. Permit me to remind the Senate that owever associated it may be historically, perhaps, with the amendment now before the Senate, in point of fact it has nothing to do with it. You may have one opinion or another opinion on the question which the SenatOr has raised, and it will not affect your conclusion on the proposition upon which you are to vote. Whether Senators agree with the learned Senfrom Maryland, that the Senate cannot share with the President the power of removal, or whether they disagree with him, what has that to do with the question that i! now before us? Therefore, sir, let me say, the Senator did not advance oue jot in his argument when he adduced the authority of Mr. Madison, for Madison did not address himself to the question on which you are to vote. He wrote on entirely a different question, the power of removal. When the power of removal is in discussion, I, for one, shall be ready to enter into that debate, and of course I shall give all due weight to the authority of Mr. Madison and also the other names which are associated with that question. I may remind the learned Senator, though he is not ignorant of it, that when that question was originally decided in. this Chamber. it was under the A ministration of Geor c Washington, and by the castin vote of the VEEP of that day, John A ams; and there is reason to believe that when the Senate at that time abdicated its power to interfere in removals, it Was governed as much by its great deference for George lashington as it was by any constitutional opinion that it had not the power. However, I merely refer to these matters in order to put them out of the discussion; they have nothing to do with it; and this brings me to the precise proposition before the Senate. In order that I may make no mistake in stating it, I will read its precise language: Tunt no person exercisingorperforming, or under taking to exercise or perform, the duties of anycities which bylaw is required to be filled by the advice and consent of the Senate shall, before confirmation py the Senate, receive any salary or compensation or his services unlesssuch person be commiauoned by the President to till up a vacancy which has hsp ened by death. resignation, or expiration of term tiring the recessof the Senate and since its last ndiournmout. The proposition is very simple; it needs no commentary or no explanation. All familiar with public offices know that there are unquestionalily abuses that have occurred in the executive Dept from the habit, after the adjournment of the SeQte, of filling vacancies which had existed during the session of the Senate but which the Senate had chosen not to fill. ls Congress wrong if it undertakes to provide by legislation that in such cases the party nominated shall not be entitled to an salary or compinsation until he is afterwar confirmed by the Senate? It may be, as the Senfrom Maryland suggests, that we may not interfere with the power.of removal; but there is one power which Congress has and the Senate is a part of Congress and that is the power over the arse strin s; and all that this proposition uu ertakes to o is to exercise power over the purse strings in certain cases, so as to impose acbeck, aconstitutional check, which recent events show ought to be imposed upon the Executive. The proposition is so simple that it hardly justifies ament, and I will not take any further time u out it.