Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not mean to say whether there are such men or not; but I say it is exceedingly important that there should be a cordiality of feeling and an agreement upon important matters of State policy and State conduct between the President and those who are his confidential advisers. The President naturally would not want a man in his councils who was unfriendly to him, upon whose discretion he could not o, in the 1st place, and upon whose good faith in keeping the secrets of the executive government o: could not rely in the 2nd place; and if he was unfriendly the President might naturally be in fear of consulting him and taking his advice. A man who is the head of a Dept naturally wants the control of that Dept. He wants the control of his subordinates, that they should be subject to him and that he should have the power to remove them from office in case they are insubordinate and are such as he cannot comfortably get along with, and to remove them upon the instant, at the moment if it be necessary. In my judgment, in order to the good and proper administration of a dept it is necessary that that power should exist in the head of it, and quite as necessary that the power should exist in the President with reference to the few men who are placed about him to share his councils, be his friends and his agents. As my friendfrom Oregon has said, I do not think we are treating the office of President with very great respect when we say that he shall not, in the recess of Congress, remove a Cabinet officer if he deems it necessary. I cannot suppose a case where any man who is on bad terms with the President, who knows that he is, and who knows that the President desires to get rid of him and has no confidence in him, would stay there unless he was controlled by a sense of overruling public duty in a very dan rous and peculiar time. Naturally every man. to be a member of the Cabinet would feel precisely in that way. Then, sir, under these circumstances, my opinion agrees entirely with that of the honorable Senfrom Vermont and the honorable Senfrom Oregon and the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, that it is carrying the matter too far to say that in the long recess of Congress, which usually takes place between the 4th of March and the 1st Monday of December every 2nd do the President shall have no power, if he deems it necessary, to change his advisers. Of course under the Constitution he must send the name of whoever he appoints to the Senate afterward for the Senate to act upon, because the Constitution has very wisely provided that we shall have a voice in the appointment of all officers except those who may be designated by law as inferior officers. I hope, therefore, that this exception may be made, as well with reference to what I think is due to the office itself and the peculiar relations the heads of the Depts hold to the President as to what has been the uniform and universal custom in consideration of the ordinary courtesy due to the POTUS on such matters. It is a subject of regret to me that it becomes necessary to legislate at all upon this subject of the removal of officers. Under ordinary circumstances I would be opposed to such legislation. I believe my friends thought I was rather slow when I opposed some time ago the putting of an amendment of this nature upon one of the appropriation, bills. I stated at that time, and if my recollection does not fail me the honorable Senfrom Maryland