Mr. SHERMAN. Well, take the case of on assessor or a collector or a consul or a diplo matic minister, and the 1,000s of officers covered by this amendment. Cabinet officers cannot be removed and anybody put in, rebel or loyal, except at the risk of not getting any pay in case the Senate disapproves the reasons for the removal. This amendment does not “event. the President from removing any man O chooses, and he may give us a reason or not just as pleases; the removal is complete and perfect by the will of the President; so that the amendment accomplishes nothing. It is true, the man who takes the office cannot draw his pay until the Senate meets; but do you punish the President, do you cripple his power, do you limit his control over the public officers? Do you accomplish what you desire to accomplish? Not at all. You may punish some poor devil who is compelled to exercise the duties of an office and not get any pay for it; but you do not hurt the President or hurt. his feelings. The result will be that good men, poor men, may be deterred from accepting office under these conditions, while bad men or rich men may be indifferent to the salary attached to the office. I say, therefore, with due deference to the Senfrom Illinois, that the amendment does not accomplish the purpose that he has in view; it does not limit or control the power of the President over the public officers, but simply agravates acontroversy which may never arise. ow, sir, there is a way, I think, in which this matter can be accomplished not by an amendment to an appropriation bill; not by a limitation of this character; but by the exercise of the power of Congress over the duration and term oft the various public officers. Although it has been somewhat nestioned at different times since the foundati of the government, yet, as I have said before, I do not believe it has ever been successfully controverted that Congress may regulate the duration and term of a public Officer, may limit the power of the President to remove him, may declare that such and such an officer shall not be removed except for such and such a cause. But a hill of that kind must be made with many discriminations, must be made after much care. There are certain officers that the President ought to have the absolute wer of removing; I can name Cabinet officer s; it would be intolerable that the President should be exgected to carry on the business of“ this great government with a Cabinet council over whose members he had not the power of remove], the complete and absolute power. For that reason, hostile political parties have often confirmed the Cabinet ministers of a President of opposite politics, on the ground that the Pros ent from the very necessity of the case must.have the power of removing Cabinet ministers and appointing such as he chooses. He must administer those great offices through his rsonal Friends, and no party would require i mto a point any but personal friends around him to thesegreat offices. He must, therefore, epower over the Cabinet ministers., Sn, too, he must have a power over the diplomatic corps in a great measure. Those are officers appointed to represent our country abroad, holding confidential relations with the SecyState, and therefore the power over those officers ought not to be limited or controlled or crippled by Congress. But there are classes of officers who ought to hold their offices independent of the power of removal by the President assessors, collectors, postmasters,und other officers who really may exercise political power; that ought by the law to be secured from unjust and arbitrary removal; and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Congress from passing a law on the subject, securing those officers in the discharge of their duties. Mr. President, Congress has power over this subject much more ample than is generally supposed. Congress may prescribe that the judges of the Supreme Court or heads of Depts or courts of law may make a great variety of appointments. The provision of the Constitution is that “Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Depart merits.” Now, who is an inferior officer? Is a collector an inferior officer or a superior officer 7 Is an assessor an interior or a superior officer? The Constitution says that “Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the Presidentalone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Depts.” There is no limit in this relative character of officers except the wise discretion of Congress.