Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand this bill to be based upon some principle, and I should like to know of the Senfrom Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] what that principle is, except it be this: that when a person is put in an office for a fixed period he is to be permitted to hold that office during the period, unless there is cause for his removal. Is that the principle of the bill? If it is not that, what is it? Why are we passing this bill exept to correct what is supposed to be an evil by the turning of men out of office through Price, or to accomplish political ends, or o ". lonions of some kind? woi. principle of lo the bill, are you going." and say that because an officer is. of the Cabinet he may be y removed causewhatever? What principle is there in that? Will there be any difficulty in the President getting the consent of the Senate at any time to remove a Cabinet officer if there is any reason why he should be removed? Will any person fit to occupy the position of a Cabinet minister be likely to hold the place when his relations are unfriendly and hostile to the President? I apprehend not; and if he were disposed to h. it is there a Senator here that would hesitate a moment to confirm the nomination of the President for a member of his Cabinet to succeed such an officer when we understood that the relations between them were unpleasant, unless some public considerations were involved. Would there be any difficulty in the practical application of this bill? And do we not give up all the prin tiple there is in it if we make this exception? We go to the country and say we have passed a bill upon principle, that public policy requires that the officers of the Government should be independent and not to hold their office simply at the will, the whim, and the caprice of the appointing power; and yet in that very bill we recognize the principle that a portion of them shall hold their offices at the will and the whim and the caprice of the appointing power. I see no reason for excepting Cabinet officers, and I think there will be no difficulty in the practicable operation of the bill. If these officers are of the character such men ought to be, it is hardly to be Presumed they would continue to hold office against the wishes of the President, with whom they were required to have personal intercourse. I apprehend such a case would hardly ever arise; but if there was a case where the public interests, the safety of the country, or its peace depended upon retaining in office a faithful public officer who was a Cabi net minister when it was sought to use him for the purpose of the overthrow or the destruction of l, government, I say the Senate ought to stand here and not allow him to be removed. If there is any principle in the bill, that is the principle. If that principle is omitted, I. do not why we are passing the bill. Mr.oIshould hope never to see the time in this country when any man would hold a Cabinet office when he knew that it was disagreeable to the President. But I do not intend to discuss the question now. It was not expected, I Presume, by many Senators that this bill would come up this afternoon; a great many seats are vacant; and I move to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Monday and proceed with the bankrupt bill. I know several Senators supposed the bankrupt bill was going on in its details and that that would be the only business before the Senate this afternoon, and they are not here, and a vote ought not to be taken at this time. This is a question upon which all Senators feel some interest.