Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, I feel some hesitation in supporting any amendment of the Constitution in reference to the election or term of the President. I have long thought, however, that it would be but reasonable to limit an incumbent to one term and forbid his reeligibility, and I shall therefore vote for the amendment recommended by the ComJudiciary. But I am entirely opposed to extending the duration of the Presidential term. I think the history of the country shows that it is not too short. The frequent recurrence of the Presidential election is no more an inconvenience to the people or to the government than the frequent election of representatives; it is, indeed, substantially the same process, and it is as easy to elect a President once in 2 years certainly, as to elect the members of the HoRep once in 2 years; and I do not see what is to be gained to the cause of republican liberty by the extension of the term. It strikes me that the observations of the honorable Senfrom Ohio on this point are weighty and well worthy of our consideration. We ought not to permit it to be understood or inferred that the Presidential office is anything but an elective, popular office, dependent upon the will of the nation; and I see no reason why there should not be frequent recurrences of the exercise of the elective franchise in respect to it. Now, sir, I have in my mind a tolerably good illustration of this principle of allowing the President to hold a term of office for 6 years. I call the attention of the Senfrom Wer mont to the fact that we once had a James Buchanan as POTUS; and was it not a most fortunate thing for this country and the cause of human liberty that the term of that gentleman expired at the end of 4 years? Suppose he jhad possession of the office under the Constitution for 6 years instead of 4, and had held on until the 4th of March, 1863, aided and assisted by those pinks of political honesty and honor, the Floyds, the Thompsons, the Touceys, and all that class of men. ask you, sir, and I ask the gentlemen who favor the extension of the Presidential term, what would have been the condition of the U.S.A. at this time? We should have lost the case, the Government would have been destroyed by the protracted and persevering treachery of that Cabinet, and instead of seeing the U.S.A. today rePresented in Congress assembled, we should have seen a universal anarchy from one end of the land to the other, and the rebel States installed in the possession of independence and sovereign power as a nation and recognized as such by the other nations of the earth. Our great experiment of self government in that case would have miserably failed. It was, in my judgment, a most fortunate circumstance that the term of James Buchanan expired on the 4th of March, 1861, instead of 1863. The honorable Senator {Mr. Poland] remarks that the mistake committed was that he was elected at all to the office of President. Well, sir, we are just as liable hereafter to commit similar mistakes; it is in the nature of our institutions that the people may from time to time be imposed upon by an incompe tent, faithless, or traitorous Chief Magistrate. We were imposed upon then undoubtedly, but it will not follow that because we were once imposed upon we shall not again be imposed upon by means of similar political agencies and intrigues. The thing is to be expected almost as a matter of course, and the liability ought by no means to be If overlooked. it were left to me and I have not been without some reflection on this subject whether to extend the Presidential term or abbreviate it I should certainly abbreviate it, and elect a President as frequently as members of the HoRep are elected; and be sides, elect him by the popular vote, precisely in the same way; but I do not now care to disturb the ancient arrangement under which we have lived for so many years, and I think it unwise to attempt it. I shall vote against the amendment extending the term of the President offered by the Senfrom Vermont. Nor would I except out of the operation of the proposed amendment the Present incum bent of the Presidential chair, as has been suggested by the Senfrom Connecticut. The amendment suggests a fundamental alteration in our Constitution in reference to the eligibility of persons who have once exercised the Presidential office., Has that honorable Senator discovered such beauties, such attractions in the political administration of the Present incumbent as in his judgment to make it necessary and proper for us to exempt him from the operation of the general rule we propose now to establish? Is there anything in his administration or in his history, or is there likely to be anything in his future history and career, that would justify us in making him an exception? Although I have marked his course most diligently and sought to discover as with a microscope the political virtues that pertain to him, I have not been able to see them in such quantities as to induce me to make An drew Johnson such an exception. On the other hand, speaking of course with all the charity and forbearance that I ought to exercise toward absent persons, I am prepared to say that if there be a living man within the limits of the U.S. to whom this restriction ought in justice and upon every consideration of policy to be applied that man is the Present incumbent. The Senfrom Connecticut, however, would release him from the operation of the rule, while, as it would seem, he would be entirely willing that the exclusion should apply to Mr. Fillmore, still living, and to Mr. Pierce, also a subsisting exPOTUS, and to Buchanan.