Mr. DOOLITTLE. Executive otheers are under the President, and responsible to the President in the execution of the law. The President is responsible for the execution of the laws and responsible that every executive officer under him shall execute the laws. He is sworn to see that they do execute the laws; he is the chief of the executive power, upon whom the responsibility, by the constitution, is placed, and therefore these officers are resonsible to him. ut, Mr. President, the Senfrom Illinois, with all hisingenuityI to get around the guestion, did not answer the question I put to im. Suppose that the collector of customs in the city of NewYork, immediately after the adjournment of Congress, or at any time during the vacation, is found to be embezzling the public money, is it true, as the Senator maintains, that the President cannot createavacancy, but that he is still in office and must remain in office until his successor is appointed and confirmed by the Senate 3 The proposition is mon strous. Put another case. suppose he should become insane;supposethat he insanity of the late collector of t to city of NewYork, our esteemed friend, who, in a fit of insanity, threw bimselfinto the Hudson river, had shown itself during the vacation, would it not be possible that t to POTUS should remove him from the office and make avacancy? The Senator contends that the President cannot make a vacancy in an office as long as the man is living and does not resign or leave the country, without thrusting another man in to push him out of Office. That is a great fallacy. The truth is, the power exists, and the Supreme Court have so decided, and such has been the practice of the Government for sev entygears; and I think that all who have precede us, although there was some difference of opinion at the time, are entitled to some constderation, and the practice of the Government for 60 or 70 years is entitled to some consideration. The practice has been, that while the President couiil make a removal, he could not fill an Office without the consent of the Senate. exceptin the vacation; he could not do it while the Senate was in session, so that the officer would not be entitled to take possession of the Office or commence acting; but during the vacation, and until the Senate does meet, he has that power. I do not mean to go into any argument of this matter at length; Iwill simply state another fact. My friendfrom Massachusetts, it seems to me, and some other gentlemen appear to assume that there is a rent abuse of executive patronage. What of they mean? Do they refer to an abuse of executive power by the present Executive? There is no just ground for an such complaint. I an to the Senfrom Iiassachuse tts, and he news it well it is a matter s oken of in the papers that it is understood that even in his own Cabinet the President tolerates differences of opinion; that men are in the Cabinet, one or more, who sympathize with the Senfrom Massachusetts in his peculiar views on reconstruction, and the President does not even remove a member of his Cabinet for opinions sake. It is true Congress has passed resolutions from time to time that to the returned and disabled soldiers who have served in the war for the Union, other things bein equal, the public offices should be given. The Massachusetts has advocated that. Our State Legislatures have resolved to do the same thing. Our own party Union conventions throughout the country resolved to do it. Occasionally perhaps the President may have removed an incumbent for the purpose of placin, in accordance with the spirit of the times and the demands both of the resolutions of Congress and of the various Legislatures, a soldier of this description in his place. There may be other cases, and they are exceedingly rare Senators can point out but ver few where persons have been removed not or opinions an e, but some times for that personal invective and abuse upon the Administration which no Administration can tolerate with any respect for itself. I can assure the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that from all that I have seen, my judgment has come to the conclusion that there never has been a more tolerant chief executive magistrate within my recollection than the one who is now Occupying the presidential chair.