:3>:~>33^1 >;>i^ S i LIBRARY OF CONfiKESS. UNITED .STATES OF AMERICA. J | •r^->? ^ ) r? - - ■:W^'j: ^ J> 52 3^^ > ^>5 ^::>j^ >5>.5i ^^ ym - ^':>y^ j> ys>x ^^ 3 T ,j^^mmB:ji> . ^»3: sm .:>;>o >yysfp^yjo'il ^ .^ yj ' zS> >y~) ) :^j> ^>>-:^ >i^j - 5 >. > :>< -.^ ^3> > . -» > > ^ y ^^y> " ^:'yy> 22^ >-J* '>^ PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. SPEECH HON. CHARLES '^SUMNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE TENURE OF CERTAIN CIVIL OFFICES; ,.J DELIVERED /i IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, JANUARY 15, 17, AND 18, 1867. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1867. PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Tuesday, January 15, 1867. The iSenate resumed the consideration of " A bill to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices." Mr. Sumner offered the following amend- ment as an additional section : And be it further enacted. That all officers or agents, except clerks of Departments, now appointed by the President or by the head of any Department, whoso salary or compensation, derived from fees or other- wise, exceeds 81,000 annually, shall be nominated by the President and appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and the term of all such officers or agents who have been .appointed since the 1st davof July, 18G13, cither by the President or by the head of a Department, without the advice and con- sent of the Benate, shall expire on the last day oi February, 1867. In reply to Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who had charge of the bill and opposed this amend- ment, Mr. SUMNER .said: Mr. President, the proposition that I have offered now I moved yesterday on another bill in a slightly different form, but it was substantially the same. I did not understand at that time that there was any objcctiou to it in principle. It was opposed as not being germane to the bill in hand ; or if it was germane its adoption on that bill was sup- posed in some way to emb.arrass its passage. On that ground, as I understand, it was opposed. It was not opposed on its merits. Senators who spoke against it avowed their partiality to it, if I understood them aright, and they said that if they had an opportunity on any pro'per bill they would vote for it. Well, sir, I now move it again on another bill, to which I believe all will admit it is en- tirely crerraane. There is no suggestion that it is uot'gcrmane. It is completely in order. But the objection of the Senator from_ Ver- mont, if I understand him, is that it may inter- fere somewhat with the symmetry of his bill, and introduce an element which he,_ who has tJiat bill in charge and now conducts it so ably, had not intended to introduce. Very well, sir ; that may be said ; but I do not think it ia a very strong objection. Then, again, if I understood the Senator aright, he said that this amendment if ingrafted on his bill might endanger it. I think he is mistaken. I think so far from endangering the bill my amendment would give it strength. Mr. HOWE. Merit. Mr. SUMNER. My friend says merit. It would give it l)oth strength and merit. Why? Because it is a proposition which grows out of the exigency of the hour. His bill on a larger scale is just such a proposition. It grows out of the exigency of the hour, and this is its strength and its merit. We shall pass that, if we do pass it, and I hope we shall, in order to meet a crisis. We all feel its necessity. But the proposition which I now move grows equally out of the exigency of the hour. If ingrafted on the bill it will be like the original measure, to meet the demands of the moment. It will be because without it we shall leave something undone which we ought to do. Now, I ask Senators about me is there any one who doubts that under the circumstances such a provision ought to pass? Is there any one who doubts, after what we have seen on a large scale, that the President, for the time being at least, ought to be deprived of the ex- traordinary function which he has exercised? He has announced openly in public speech that he meant to " kick out of office" present incumbents, and it was in this proceeding of " kicking out of office" that on his return to Washington afterward he undertook to^ re- move incumbents wherever he could. Now, sir, it seems to me that we owe our protection to these incumbents so far as possible. It belongs to the duty of the hour. If the Sen- ator from Vermont will tell me any other way in which this proposition can be promoted suc- cessfully I shall gladly follow him ; but until then I think that I ought to insist that it shall share the fortunes of the bill which he is now conducting, "enjoy its triumph, and partake its gale." If the bill succeeds, then let this mensure, which is as good as the bill. But the suggestion has been made that the proposition should be matured perhaps in a committee. Why, sir, the proposition is very simple. Any one can mature it who apj^lies his mind to it for a few moments, it has already been before the Senate for several days, discussed once, twice, three times, I think, not elaborately, but still discussed, so that its mer- its have become known, and beside its discus- sion in open Senate I am a witness that it has been canvassed in conversation much. There are many Senators who have applied their minds to it, and I may say that in offering it now I do not merely speak for myself, but for others, and the proposition in the form in which I present it is not merely my own, but it is the proposi- tion of many other Senators on this floor, to whose careful supervision it has been submit- ted. Therefore I say that it is matured, so far as is necessary, and there is no reason why the Senate should not act ujDon it. Why postpone what is in itself so essentially good? Why put off to some unknown future the chance of applying a remedy to an admitted abuse ? Is there any one here who insists that this is not un abuse, that here has not been a tyrannical exercise of power? No one. Then, sir, let us apply the remedy. This is the first chance we can get. Let us take it. The debate on this bill and Mr. Sumner's amendment was continued, the amendment being sujiported by Senators Sumner, Grimes, Howe, and Si'rague, and opposed by Senators Fessexdex, Craoin, Sherman, McDougall, WiLLET, and Hendricks. " Thursday, January 17, 1867. The Senate again having the subject under consideration — Mr. SUMNER said : As the proposition on which the Senate is about to vote was brought forward by me I hope that I may have the in- dulgence of the Senate for a few minutes. Had I succeeded in catching the eye of the Chair at the proper time I should, perhaps, have said something in repl)' to the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hendricks,] but he has already been answered by the Senator from California, [Mr. CoNNESS.] Besides, the topics which he introduced were, if I may so express myself, political in their character. He did not ad- dress himself directly to the proposition on which you are to vote. I do not say that his remarks were irrelevant; but obviously he seized the occasion to make a political speech. The Sen- ator is an excellent debater ; he always speaks to the point as he understands it ; and yet his point is apt to be political. Of course he speaks as one having authority with his party, in which he is an acknowladged leader. And now, sir, you will please to remark, he comes forward as a leader for the President of the United States. The Senator from Indiana, an old-school Dem- ocrat — he will not deny the appellation — now presents himself as the defender of the Presi- dent. Very well. I congratulate the President upon so able a defender. Before this great con- troversy is closed the President will need all the ability, all the experience, all the admirable powers of debate which belong to the distin- guished Senator. As I propose to recall the Senate precisely to the question before us, I shall begin by ask- ing the Secretary to read the amendment which I have offered. The Secretary read the amendment, when— Mr. SUMNER continued : Now, Mr. Pre.si- dent, I do not wish to be diverted from that plain proposition into any general discussion of a merely political character. I ask your attention to the simple question on which you are to vote. And here I meet the objections which have been brought against my amendment, so far as I have been able to comprehend them. They have chiefly found a voice, iinless I am much mistaken in the Senator from JIaine, [Mr. Fessenden,] who is as earnest as he is unques- tionably able. The Senator began with a warning, and his beginning gave a tone to all that he said. He warned us not to forget the lessons of the past; and he warned us also not to fall under the influence of any animosity. When he warned us not to forget the lessons of the past such was his earnestness that he seemed to me fresh from the study of Confu- cius. No learned Chinese, anxious that there should be no departure from the ancient ways and filled with devotion for distant progenitors, could have enjoined that duty more reverently. We were to follow what had been done in the past. Now, sir, I have a proper deference for the past ; I recognize its lessons and seek to comprehend them; but I am not a Chinese to be swathed by any traditions. I break all bands and wrappers when the occasion requires. I trust that the Senator from Maine will do so likewise. The occasion now is of such a char- acter that his lesson is entirely inapplicable. It is well to regard the Past, and study its teach- ings. It is well also to regard the Future, and seek to provide for its necessities. This is plain enough. Then, sir, we are notto act under the influence of animosity. Excellent counsel : but pray what Senator on an occasion like this, when wo strive to place in the statutes of the country an important land-mark, can allow himself to act ilnder any such influence? Is the Senator from Maine the only one who can claim such immunity? I am sure he will not make any such exclusive claim. As he is conscious that he is free from this disturbing influence, so also am I. He is not more free from it than 1 am. Most sincerely from my heart do I disclaim all animosity. I bave nothing of the kind. I see nothing on this occasion but my duty. And when I speak of my duty, I speak of ■whit I would emphatically call the duty of the hour. I tried the other day in what passed between myself and the Senator from Maine briefly to illustrate this idea. I said that we are not to act absolutely with reference to the past ; nor absolutely with reference to the future, but we are to act in the present. Each hour has its duties and this hour has duties such as few other hours in our history have ever presented. Is there any one who can question it? Are we not in the midst of a crisis? It is sometimes said that we are in the midst of a revolution. Call it if you will simply a crisis. It is a critical hour, having its own peculiar responsibilities. Now, if you ask me in what the duty of the hour specially centers, on what the duty of the hour specially pivots, I have a very easy reply : it is in protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen, wherever he maybe. I repeat it, protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen is the imminent duty of the hour. This duty is so commanding, so engrossing, so ab- sorbing, so peculiar, let me say in one word, so sacred, that to neglect is like the neglect of every thing. It is nothing less than a general abdication. Such, I say emphatically is the duty of the hour, in the presence of which it is vain for the Senator from Maine to cite the experience i of other times when no such duty was urgent. He does not meet the case. What he says is irrelevant. All that was done in the past may have been well done. For it now I have no criticism ; but at this hour it is absolutely inap- plicable. I return, then, to my proposition, that the duty of the hour is protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen. But when I have said this I have not completed the proposition. You may ask, protection against whom? I answer plainly, protection against the President of the United States. There, sir, is the duty of the hour. Ponder it well, and do not forget it. There was no such duty on our fathers ; there was no such duty on our recent prede- cessors in this Chamber, because thece was no President of the United States who had become the enemy of his country. Mr. SuMXEK was here called to order by Mr. McDouGALL, who insisted that no Senator had a right to make use of such words in speaking of tiie President of the United States. There was much question as to what Mr. Sumner reall}' said. The PRESiuixt; Officer decided that Mr. SuMXER was in order, from which decision Mr. McDoLGALL appealed ; but finally withdrew his appeal, when — !ifr. SUMNEPt continued : When I was inter- rupted in the extraordinary way which the Sen- ate witnessed a few moments ago. I was trying to present reasons in favor of the proposition on which we are to vote, and I insisted as strongly as I could that the special duty of the hour was protection to loyal and patriotic citizens against the President of the United States ; I was replying to what fell from the Senator from Maine, who seems, if I may judge from his argument, to feel that there is no occasion for special safeguards at this hour, and that the system left by our fathers is enough. In this reply I used language which, according to the short-hand reporter, was as follows. He has kindly written it out and sent it to me. I read from his notes : " There, sir, is the duty of the hovir. There was no such duty on our fathers : there was no such duty on our recent predecessors, because there was no Presi- dent of the United States who had becomethe enemy of his country." Such were the words which I used when sud- denly interrupted. By those words, sir, I stand. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I raise a question of order, whether these words are in order, as stated by the Senator? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has already decided a similar point of order. The Chair will submit this question to the Senate. The Presiding Officer afterward decided that Mr. ScMNER was in order. Mr. Doo- LiTTLE appealed from this decision, and ^Ir. Lane moved to lay this appeal upon the table. Amid much confusion other motions were in- terposed. At last a vote was reached on the motion of Mr. Laxe. The yeas and nays were ordered ; and being taken, resulted — yeas 29, nays 10; as follows: YEAS— Messrs. Brown. Cattell, Chandler, Con- ness. Cragin, Edmunds. Fessenden, Fogg, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirliwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Ramsey, Sherman. Sprague, Stewart, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey. Williams. Wilson, and Yates— 29. NAYS — Messrs. Buclialew. Cowan, Dixon, Doolit- tle. Hendricks. Johnson, McDougall, Norton, Patter- son, and Saulsbury— 10. ABSENT OR NOT VOTING— Messrs. Anthony, (presiding,) Creswell, Davis, Foster, (iuthrie, Nes- mith, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Riddle, Ross, Sumner, and Trumbull— 13. So the. appeal from the decision of the Chair was laid upon the table. Mr. Sumner, who was in his seat, refrained from voting. The Senate then adjourned. Friday, January 18, 1867. Mr. SUMNER having the floor, continued as follows: It is only little more than a year ago that I felt it my duty to characterize a message of the IPresident as "white- washing."' _The_ mes- sage represented the condition of things in the rebel States as fair and promising when the prevailing evidence was directly the other wa.y. Of course the message was'^'whitewashing," and this was a mild term for such a document. But you do not forget how certain Senators, horror-struck at this plainness, leaped forward 6 to vindicate the President. Yesterday some of tliesesarneSenators,horror-struckagain, leaped forward again in the same task. Time has shown that I was right on the former occasion. If any- body doubts that I was right yesterday I com- mend him to time. He will not be obliged to wait long. Meanwhile I shall insist always upon complete freedom of debate, and I shall exercise it. John Milton, in his glorious aspi- rations, said, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely above all liber- ties." Thank God, now that slave-masters have been driven from this Chamber, such is the liberty of an American Senator I Of course there can be no citizen of a llepublic too high for exposure, as there can be none too low for protection. The exposure of the powerful and the protection of the weak; these are not only invaluable liberties but commanding duties. At last the country is opening its eyes to the actual condition of things. Already it sees that Andrew Johnson, who came to supreme power by a bloody accident, has become the successor of Jefferson Davis in the spirit by which he is governed and in the mischief he is inflicting on his country. It sees the Presi- dent of the Rebellion revived in the President of the United States. It sees that the violence which took the life of his illustrious predecessor is now ])y his perverse complicity extending throughout the rebel States, making all who love the Union its victims and filling the land with tragedy. It sees that the war upon faith- ful Unionists is still continued under his power- ful auspices, without any distinction of color, so that all, both white and black, are sacri- ficed. It sees that he is the minister of discord, and not the minister of peace. It sees that, so long as his influence prevails, there is small chance of tranquillity, security, or reconcilia- tion ; that the restoration of prosperity in the rebel States, so much longed for, must be ar- rested ; that the business of the whole country must be embarrassed, and that those conditions on which a sound currency depends must be postponed. All these things the country now sees. But indignation assumes the form of judgment when it is seen also that this incred- ible, unparalleled, and far-reaching mischief, second o"'y to the Rebellion itself, of which it is a contniuation, is created, invigorated and extended through a plain usurpation. I know that the President sometimes quotes the Constitution and professes to carry out its behests. But this pretension is of little value. A French historian, whose fame as a writer is eclipsed by his greater fame as an orator, who has held important posts, and now in advancing years is still eminent in public life, has used words which aptly characterize an attempt like that of the President. I quote from the history of M. Thiers, while describing what is known as the resolution of the 18th Brumaire : " When any one wishes to make a revolution or a counter-revolution it is necessary always to disguise the illegality as much as possible and to this end to use the terms of the Constitution in order to destroy it, and also the members of a Government in order to overturn it." In this spirit the President has acted. He has bent Constitution, laws, and men to his arbi- trary will, and has even invoked the Declara- tion of Independence forthe overthrow of those Equal Rights which it so grandly proclaims. In holding up Andrew Johnson to judgment, I do not dwell on his open exposure of himself in a condition of beastly intoxication while he was taking his oath of office ; nor do I dwell on the maudlin speeches by which he has de- graded the couutry as it was never degraded before ; nor do I hearken to any reports of pardons sold, or of personal corruption. This is not the case against him, as I deem it my duty to present it in this argument. These things are bad, very bad ; but they might not, in the opinion of some Senators, justify us on the present occasion. In other words, they might not be a sufficient reason forthe amend- ment which I have moved. But there is a reason which is ample. The President has usurped the powers of Congress on a colossal scale, and he has employed these usurped powers in fomenting the rebel spirit and awakening anew the dying fires of the re- bellion. Though the head of the Executive, he has rapaciously seized the powers of the Legislative and made himself a whole Con- gress in defiance of a cardinal principle of republican government that each branch must act for itself without assuming the powers of the other ; and, in the exercise of these illegit- imate powers, he has become a terror to the good and a support to the wicked. Tliis is his great and unpardonable offense, for which history must condemn him if you do not. He is a usurper, through whom infinite wrong has been done to his country. He is a usurper, who, promising to be a Moses, has become a Pharaoh. Do you ask for evidence? No wit- nesses are needed to prove this guilt. It is found in public acts which are beyond ques- tion. It is already written in the history of of our country. Absorbing to himself all the powers of the national Government, and ex- claiming with the French monarch that hi alone is "the nation," he has assumed with- out color of law to set up new governments ir the rebel States, and. in the prosecution of this palpable usurpation, he has placed these gov- ernments of his own creation in the hands ol traitors to the exclusion of patriot citizens, white and black, who, through his agency, are trampled again under the heel of the rebellion. Thus a power plainly illegitimate has been wielded to establish governments plainly ille- gitimate, which are nothing but engines of an intolerable oppression, under which peace and union are impossible; and this monstrous usurp- ation is now continued in constant efforts by every means to enforce the recognition of these illegitimate governments, so tyrannical in origin and so baneful in the influence which they are permitted to exert. And now in the main- tenance of his usurpation the President has employed the power of removal from office. Some, who would not become the partisans of his tyranny he has, according to his own lan- guage, "kicked out." Others are spared, but silenced by this menace and the fate of their associates. Wherever any vacancy occurs, whether in the loyal or the rebel States, it is filled by the partisans of his usurpation. Other vacancies are created to provide for these par- tisans. I need not add that just in proportion as we sanction such nominations or fail to arrest them, according to the measure of our power, we become parties to his usurpation. Here I am brought directly to the practical application of this simple statement. I have already said that the duty of the hour is in protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen against the President. Surely this cannot be doubted. The first duty of a Government is protection. The crowning glory of a Republic IS that it leaves no man, however humble, without protection. Show me a man exposed to wrong and I show you an occasion for the e.xercise of all the power that God and the Constitution have given you. It will not do to say that the cases are too numerous, or that the remedy cannot be applied without inter- fering with a system handed down from our fathers, or worse still, that you have little sym- pathy with this suffering. This will not do. You must apply the remedy, or fail in duty. Espe- cially must you apply it when, as on the present occasion, this wrong is part of a huge usurp- ation in the interest of recent Rebellion. The question then recurs, are you ready to apply the remedy, according to the measure of your powers? The necessity of this remedy may be seen in the rebel States, and also in the loyal States, for the usurpation is feltwn both. If you look at the rebel States, you will see everywhere the triumph of Presidential tyranny. There is not a mail which does not bring letters "without number supplicating the exercise of all the powers of Congress against the Presi- dent. There is not a newspaper which does not exhibit evidence that you are already tardy in this work of necessity. There is not a wind from that suffering region which is not freighted with voices of distress. And yet you hesitate. I shall not be led aside to consider the full remedy for this usurpation ; for it is not my habit to travel out of the strict line of debate. Therefore, I confine myself to the bill now under consideration, which is applicable alike to the loyal and the rebel States. This bill has its origin in what I have already called the special duty of the hour, which is the protection of loyal and patriotic citizens against the President. In what I have already said I have shown the necessity of this protec- tion. But the brutal language which the Presi- dent has employed shows the spirit in which he has acted. The Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Hendricks,] whose judgment could not ap- prove this brutality, doubted if the President had used it. Let me settle this question. Here is the National Intelligencer, always indulgent to the President. In its number for loth of September^ast it thus reports what our Chief Magistrate said in a speech at St. Louis: "I believe that one set of men have enjoyed the emoluments of office loiif? enough, and they should let another portion of the people have a chance, [Cheers.] How are these men to be got out, [a voice "Kick 'em out,' — cheers and lau!?hter,] unless your Executive can put them out — unless you can reach them through the President? Congress saya ho shall not turn them out, and they are trying to pass laws to prevent it being done. Well, let me sny to you, if you will stand by me in this action — [cheers] — if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance — to have soldiers and citizens to partici- pate in theseolEces — Godbc willing, I will kick them out; I will kick themout justas fastasi can." [Great cheering.] Such language as this is without precedent. Coming from the President, it is a declaration of "policy" which it is your duty to counter- act; and in this duty you must make a prece- dent, if need be. The bill now before the Senate arises from this necessity. Had Abraham Lincoln been spared to us there would have been no occasion for this bill, which the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] has shaped with so much care, and now presses so earnestly. It is a bill arising from the exigency of the hour. As such it is to be judged. But it does not meet the whole case. Undertaking to give protection, it gives it to a few only, instead of the many. It provides against the removal of persons whose offices, according to existing law and Consti- tution, are held by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Its special object is to vindicate the power of the Senate over the offices committed to it according to existing law and Constitution. Thus vindicating the power of the Senate it does something indi- i-ectly for the protection of the citizen. In this respect it is a beneficent measure, and I shall be glad to vote for it. The amendment which I have moved goes further in the same direction. It provides that all agents and officers now appointed by the President, or by the head of a Department, shall be appointed only by and with the ad- vice and consent of the Senate ; and it further proceeds to vacate all such appointments made since 1st July last past, so as in a certain measure to arrest the recent process of "kick- ing out. ' ' This proposition is simple enough ; and I insist that it is necessary, unless you are willing to leave fellow-citizens without protec- tion against tyranny. Really the case is so plain that I do not like to argue it, and yet you will pardon me if I advert to certain objections which have been made. We have been told that the number of persons it would bring before the Senate is such that it would clog and embarrass the public business; in other words, that we have not time to deal with so many cases. This is a strange argu- ment. Because the victims are numerous, therefore, we are to fold our hands and let the sacrifice proceed. But I insist that just in pro- portion to the number is the urgency of your duty. Every victim has a voice, and when these voices count by thousands you have no right to turn away and say, "these are too numerous for the attention of the Senate." This is my answer to the objection founded on numbers. But this is not all. You did not shrink dur- ing the war from the numerous nominations of military officers, counting b}' thousands ; nor did you shrink from the numerous nominations of naval officers, counting by thousands. The power over these nominations you never re- laxed, and I know well you never will relax. You know that, even if unable to consider carefully ever}' case, yet the power over them enables you to interpose your veto on any improper nomination. The power of the Sen- ate is a warning against tyranny in the Ex- ecutive. But it Is difficult to see any strong reason for this power in the case of the Army and Navy which is not applicable also to civil officers. This I should say in tranquil tiines ; but there is another reason peculiar to the hour. Even if in tranquil times I were disposed to leave the appointing power as it is, I am not disposed now. Then, again, we are told that we must not abandon the system of our fathers. I have already answered this objection precisely, in saying that, whatever may have been the system of the fathers, it is Inadequate for the present hour. But I am not satisfied that the proposition moved by me is inconsistent with the system of the fathers. The officers of the internal revenue did not exist then, and the inferior oflicers of the customs Avere few in number and with small emoluments. But all district attornies and marshals, even if their salary was no more than .'?200, were subject to the confirmation of the Senate. Mr. EDMUNDS. And so they are yet. Mr. SUMNER. And so they are yet, the Senator reminds me, and justly ; but can the Senator doubt that if at the time when those officers were made subject to the confirmation of the Senate, weighers and gangers and in- spectors had been as well paid as they are now that they too would have been brought under the control of this body ? I cannot. Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think they would. Mr. SUMNER. The Senator does not think they would. But even if the Senator does not accept the view which I now present on the probable course of our fathers, he cannot resist the argument that, whatever may have been the old system, we must act now in the light of pres- ent duties. I repeat, a system good for our fathers may not be good for this hour, which is so full of danger. Then, again, we are told, with something of indifference If not of levity, that it is not the duty of the Senate to look after the "bread and butter" of office-holders. This is a fa- miliar way of saying that these small cases ar not worthy of occupying the Senate. Not s do I understand our duties. There is no cas so small as not to be worthy of occupying th Senate ; especiallj' if in this way you can save citizen from oppression and weaken the powe of an oppressor. Something has been said about the curtail ment of the executive power ; and the Sen ator from Maine [Mr. Fessexdex] has eve argued against the amendment moved by m as conferring upon the President addition:: 230wers. This is strange. The effect of thi amendment Is, by clear intendment, to tak from the President a large class of nomine tions and bring them within the control of th Senate. Thus it Is obviously a curtailment o executive power, which I insist has becom our bounden duty. The old resolution of th House of Commons, moved by Mr. Dunning Is applicable here : "The power of the Crow has Increased, Is Increasing, and ought to b diminished." In this spirit we must put a bi in the President, who is now maintaining a: Illegitimate power by removals from office. Mr. President, I have used moderate Ian guage, strictly applicable to the question befor us. But it Is my duty to remind you how much th public welfare depends now upon courageou counsels. Courage Is now the highest wisdom Do not forget that we stand face to face wit an enormous and malignant usurper, throng whom the Republic is Imperiled — that Reput lie which, according to our oaths of office, w are bound to save from all harm. The line are drawn. On one side is the President, an on the other side is the people of the Unite States. It is the old pretension of prerogativ to be encountered, I trust, by that same ines orableHletermination which once lifted Eno land to heroic heights. The pretension noi Is more outrageous, and its consequences ar more deadly; surely the resistance cannot b less complete. An American President mus not claim an immunity which was denied to a; English king. In this conflict, which he has s madly precipitated, I am with the people. Ii the President I put no trust; but in the peopl I put infinite trust. Who will not stand witl the people? Here, sir, I close what I have to say at thi time. But before I take my seat, you will par don me if I read a brief lesson, which seem as if written for the hour. The words are a beautiful as emphatic : "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate t the stormy present. The occasion is piled high witl difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. A our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall savi our country," Theseare the words of Abraham Lincoln. The] are as full of vital force now as when he utterec them. I entreat you not to neglect the lesson Learn from its teaching ho w to save our country ^ s r^ SS^^<^^KC' CCccc«^ c e ciG^^ ^^ -^c. fee r<^c<:: re- c^<^- ^^c^r:.<^ '^^