Mr. JOHNSON. That is so; but if my friend will turn to the debates I have not seen them recently, but I am sure I recollect the substance of them he will find that it was said in a report made by Mr. MCDuffie in the other House, and I think in a speech made by Mr. Adams, and in several fthe speeches made upon the floor of the Senate upon the question, that, notwithstanding that the charter of the bank constituted the SecyTreasury the agent of Congress, and took him therefore out of the removing power of the President, that Congress had the authority to place the public funds wherever they thought proper, and in the exercise of that admitted power they had placed the funds in the hands of the Bank of the U.S., and had, with a view to secure themselves against loss, authorized the SecyTreasury as their officer, not the officer of the President, if he should discover at any time that there was any danger of the Government losing the deposits to remove them. The ground as sumed by the President and admitted by the bank, as is evinced by their not contesting it, is the one stated by my friendfrom Maine, that the President's duty by the very words of the Constitution is to see that the laws are faith fully executed, and as the charter was a law and that law made it the duty of the SecyTreasury to take the money from the Bank of the U.S. when it was in danger, if the President thought it was in danger, if he thought the public interest might suffer, then under the President's power to have the laws executed it was his duty to direct the Secretary to remove them, and the Secretary failing to do so, to remove him; and he pursued that course. I think, as I have more than once said, I thought then that the President had no authority whatever over the subject, and that the ground assumed by McDuffie and others, and particularly in the debate in the Senate, was the sound one, that the SecyTreasury was selected merely by virtue of his office as the most convenient and reliable person that Congress could select to watch over the funds of the Government, so as to see that at no time they should be endangered by the misconduct of the bank. Mr. Taney was rejected by the Senate, and somebody else, I forget who, appointed. From that time until the last session the authority of the President to remove has never been questioned. The abuse of that authority is an entirely distinct question. The President is not above Congress or above the people during his continuance in office. He is as liable to impeachment as any other officer. The only limitation upon the power of impeachment is, that he shall be impeached only for high crimes and misdemeanors. If he commits a high crime or a misdemeanor in the sense in which those terms are used in the Constitution, the other branch of Congress may bring his case before the Senate in form of an impeachment, and this body has to act upon it.