Mr. BUCKALEW. Mr. President, I do not propose to enter again into the general debate upon this bill; I spoke on a former occasion at length; but I desire to say something in answer to the Senfrom v. who spoke this morning, [Mr. How E] The Senfrom Wisconsin suggested a point which was made in the great debate on the subject of removals from office in the Congress of 1789, to wit, that the Constitution has made no provision and contains no grant of power upon that subject except in the clauses which relate to impeachment. I say that suggestion was made in that debate, and it received complete consideration from the several members of the HoRep who took part in the discussion. If ever there was a point or a suggestion triumphantly met and answered it was this. The debate which went on for nearly one month in the HoRep at various times touched this point. The debate upon it Houd, was exhaustive. as the Senfrom Wisconsin, however, has introduced it now for the 1st time in the debate upon this measure, I choose to read from the old record of debates an important passage which will dispose of the Senator's argument, at least so far as it is founded upon former authority. About the close of the debate of;". Madison, in replying to his colleague, Mr. Page, said: “I have a great respectfor the abilities and judgment of my worthy colleague, (Mr. Page,) and convinced he is inspired by the purest motives in opposition his to what he conceives to be an improper measure;but I hope he will not think so strangeof our difference if he considersthe small proportion of the House which concurswith him with respect to impeachment being the only way of removing officers. I believe the opinion is held but by one gentleman besides himself. If this sentiment were to obtain, it would give rise to more objections to the Constitution than gentlemen are aware of; more than any other constructionwhatever.” In a House consisting of between 50 and 60 members, after a month's exhaustive consideration of this whole subject of removals, there were only 2 members left who entertained any such opinion as that which has now been introduced into this debate by the Senfrom Wisconsin. In view of this it will not be necessary for me to go over the argument again; to restate those considerations and arguments which had so complete and decisive an effect upon the HoRep at the time mentioned. Why, Mr. President, that very clause of the Constitution which provides that judges of the Supreme Court shall not be removed; or, in other words, provides that they shall hold their offices during good behavior, is itself decisive against any pretense of argument founded upon the impeachment clauses; because when the Constitution provides in effect that these particular officers shall not be subject to removal except by impeachment the conclusion is jo. that other officers, both those enumerated in the Constitution and those subordinate ones which may be established by law, will be subject to such power. If this were not so that provision which fixes tenure during good o: to the judicial office would be a provision nonsensical and absurd. But what I rose for principally was to supply an omission in my former argument on this subject. During the former debate the Senfrom Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMs] made the statement in unqualified terms that Mr. Madison had declared, with the acquiescence of the men of his age or of his time, that for an abuse by the President of his power of removing from office he would be liable to impeachment by the HoRep, and to trial and sentence of degradation or removal from office by the Senate. He repeated this from a speech of a colleague of mine in the HoRep, a very able member who spoke upon removals from office at the Present session, and alluded to this declaration of Mr. Madison, made in 1789. There is reason for care and for caution in the Senate in discussing questions connected with impeachment, in discussing questions of law connected with that great subject., I regret that the Senfrom Oregon introduced this point into the debate; and I regretted also to hear the Senfrom Wisconsin this morning speak with some degree of earnestness and at some length upon the same point. As, however, this matter is before us, and as our debates go to the coun: try and opinions are formed upon them, I shall do what I think to be my duty: I shall bring before the Senate the record of the old debate so far as this point was concerned, and without argument of my own submit that record to public judgment. In the 1st place, I will read what Mr. Madison did say: “What will be the motives which the President can feel for such abuseof his power and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the 1st place, he will be impeachableby this House before the Senate for such an act of maladministration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subhim to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.” This was in the midst of the debate, and was an observation obviously thrown off in the heat of argument. It was taken up and answered by Mr. Gerry promptly and strongly. He said: “It is said that the President will besubject to an impeachment for dismissing a good man. This, in my mind, involves an absurdity. How canthe House impeach the President for doing an act which the Legislature has submitted to his discretion?” Of course if the submission of the question of removal be by the Constitution itself the same observation would apply. He was speaking, however, upon a clause of the bill which in form conferred the power on the President to remove. Again, Mr. Gerry said later in the debate; and when he spoke with great deliberation and power: “How can you impeach the President, as by was said Kotheoh.onfoorrabel excercising Gentfrom Virginia. [Mr. a power vested in him by law? Sir, it is an absurdity to talk of impeachment such occasions when the officer is shielded by the aw.” I read again from Mr. Benson: “But it is supposed that the President may be impeached for an abuse of this power. How can that event take place? He will tell you he thought it incumbent on him to displace the officer, because he apprehended the public tranquillity was in danger; and if he erred it was the error of the head not of the heart. And will any HoRepever be found to impeach the Chief Magistrate of U.S. for an error in opinion?” the I confine myself to a few pertinent extracts to show the current of the debate, but . to add one remark: that although Mr. Madison articipated frequently in the debate after he 1st spoke, and although he noticed every argument which had been advanced by the opposition against his views; although he exhausted the subject with a fullness and with a power that has few examples in argument in our legislative history, he never recurred to this point. He seems to have dropped it, to have taken the answers which were made by Mr. Gerry and by other gentlemen as decisive. He nowhere restates or attempts to vindicate his former observations on impeachment;., I have read so much from the record of this debate in order that the imPression shall not go forth to the public that the Senate is committing itself, without propriety, in advance of any necessity or reason whatever to any particular opinion upon the law of impeachment; and I conceive that this is an act of duty to the Senate and to the public, inasmuch as this subject has been broughtforward by others. This was my purpose in rising, and I have accomplished it.