Mr. EDMUNDS. I am indifferent, personally, whether this matter be postponed until Monday or not, because, so far as I am concerned, the reasons which have influenced my action have already been stated, and I have no fresh ones to give. The argument on the other side has been gone into to the largest extent. The Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] entertained and instructed us the other day by at least 2 elaborate and skillful speeches on the subject. The Senfrom Michigan, [Mr. HowARD, I am quite sure, maintained the same side of the argument with his accustomed ability; and we were not lacking even in the assistance of the wisdom of the Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. SuMNER] upon this point. But, in spite of all that, the Senate, in a pretty full Senate, much fuller than now, by a very large majority, the number I do not recall by a majority of 27 to I15 am told by my friendfrom Maryland {Mr. JOHNson] refused to strike out these words. This identical subject was under debate for 2 successive days. I do not mean all the time; but in one form or another it was under consideration as to the propriety of striking out this clause in connection with inserting some others. I do not think that anything will be gained by the gentlemen who are determined that this clause shall be stricken out, supposing they had a majority at this moment, by forcing it to a vote and concurring with the House, because I think it altogether probable that the striking out of these exceptions will be the utter and entire defeat of the whole measure. Gentlemen who are desirous of taking the responsibility of having no regulation of this matter, for the simple reason that they cannot regulate it to the extent they think it advisa ble, may have it in their power to defeat action altogether, and of course must be willing i. take the responsibilities which flow from that. The principle that is involved in this measureis not precisely that which my honorable friendfrom Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] stated just now. He was not Present the other day when this debate took place. The principle upon which this bill proceeds, its cardinal and all embracing principle, is that the duration of an office, the tenure by which an officer shall hold it, is the subject of legal regulation. That is the whole of the essential principle of the bill. It being established that it is the subject of legal regulation by the lawmaking power of the country, then the question is, i.far is it expedient to apply that principle to lo.offices, and in what way is it expedient to apply that principle to particular offices? The E. then proceeds upon the idea that as to the chief executive advisers of the Chief Magistrate it is expedient that the law should confer upon the President, as it does now confer upon him, the power to dispense with the assistance of a particular individual in the recess if he chooses to do it. It proceeds in respect to other officers whose duties are merely mechanical and executive and are not confidential and advisory on the principle that as to them it is unfit that the public should lose the benefit of their services until the ulti mate tribunal, the President and the Senate together, shall think proper. That is the principle of the bill.