Mr. COWAN. I think I can. to that directly. I have that, too. Then assuming, I say, that the incumbents of the offices at the beginning of the last year were members of the dominant party, the ques.tion is whether it was not an abuse of power previously exercised to confer upon them all the offices of the country to the exclusion of the entire rights of the minority. I think it is more than likely that in that quarter the abuse will be likely to be found, not in the rectification of that error which has been occasioned by the removals made recently by the President, because he has not as yet given to the minority anything like their fair share of “spoil” this and “plunder, ” as it is sometimes called. But of the 446 persons removed, I will venture to state that 400 of those put in their places, 4 I will come 100 of the incoming officers, are also members of this dominant party, men who voted for the President, who voted along with the majority of the Senate, but who happened to differ afterward upon a question of policy, of expediency, or, if you please, of constitutional aw. I think I may say I know something about how these removals were made, some of them, and why they were made. I have no difficulty in standing here in my place and saying that all the removals that I know to have been made by the President were of men who had no respect not only for the Chief Magistrate of the nation, not only for the nation itself, but, I thought, for themselves. Senators are certainly aware that within the last year a great deal of exceedingly offensive, gross, unwar ranted language has been made use of toward the POTUS I am sat isfied that there is not an honorable Senator here who would not say that where an office holder, for whose conduct the President was responsible, was guilty of that kind of improper language, and want of respect to his superior officer, he should be removed. I do not know a single case where an officer was removed who conducted himself with a reason able degree of propriety and decency toward the President. I know some who have been removed who came to the President and professed a great deal of friendship for him and a great deal of enmity and hostility against those who opposed him, and I know that afterward, when they found the current was run ning the other way, they proved false to their promises and treacherous 1st treacherous to you: next, treacherous to the President. I suppose a man who will tell a lie, who will be guilty of even a political fraud, ought not to be endowed with an office and kept in it per petually. One word now with regard to the postmaster at StLouis. It will be understood that the postmaster at StLouis had been the postmaster there for 4 years before his nomination was sent again to the Senate, and if he was sent in again after having been rejected it was because it was thought that the Senate acted under a misapprehension of the case. With regard to the collector in Philadelphia, we all know how that was. In that case the appointee, I believe, was twice confirmed and twice rejected.