198 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



rie, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane, McDougall, Norton, 

 Nye, Pomeroy, Boss, Stewart, and Trumbull 14. 



On motion of Mr. Edmunds, the title of tho 

 bill was amended so as to read, " A bill regu- 

 lating the tenure of certain civil offices." 



In the House, on February 1st, the bill was 

 reconsidered, when Mr. Williams, of Pennsyl- 

 vania, moved to amend, by striking out these 

 words : 



Excepting the Secretaries of State, of the Treas- 

 ury, of War, of 'the Navy, and of the Interior, the 

 Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General. 



The amendment was disagreed to yeas 76, 

 nays Y8. 



A motion was subsequently made to recon- 

 sider this vote, which the House refused to lay 

 on the table yeas 60, nays V4. The motion 

 to reconsider was then agreed to yeas 75, 

 nays 66 ; and the amendment was agreed to 

 yeas 82, nays 63. 



The bill was then passed by the following vote : 



TEAS Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, 

 Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bidwell, Blaine, Blow, Bout- 

 well, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader 

 "W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, 

 Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Deming, Dixon, 

 Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggles- 

 ton, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, 

 Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, 

 Hawkins, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, 

 Hooper, Hotchkiss, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. 

 Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, 

 Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Koontz, Ifuyken- 

 dall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, 

 Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, 

 McRuer, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Moulton, Myers, 

 O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, 

 Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, 

 Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, 

 Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding, 

 Stokes, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van 

 Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Warner, Henry D. Wash- 

 burn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, 

 Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and 

 Windom 111. 



NATS Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, 

 Cooper, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, 

 Goodyear, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hise, Hogau, Ed- 

 win N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Hunter, Le Blond, Left- 

 wich, McCullough, Niblaek, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, 

 Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, 

 Shanklin, Stilwell, Strouse, Nathaniel G. Taylor, 

 Thornton, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Whaley, and 

 Winfield 38. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Arnell,* Delos R. Ashley, 

 James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Benja- 

 min, Bingha.m, Brandagee, Chanler, Culver, Darling, 

 Delano, Denison, Asahel W, Hubbard, Demas Hub- 

 bard, Jones, fcelso, Kerr, Ketcham, Latham, Mar- 

 shall, Marston, McClurg, Mclndoe, Mercur, Morris, 

 Newell, Radford, Sitgreaves, Starr, Stevens, Taber, 

 Nelson Taylor, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Robert T. 

 Van Horn, Hamilton Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, 

 Woodbridge, and Wright 41. 



On February 2d, the bill and amendments 

 were considered in the Senate. 



Mr. Trumbul], of Illinois, said: "I hope we 

 shall agree to the House amendment. I see no 

 occasion for a committee of conference. I think 

 there is no reason in the world why the mem- 

 bers of the Cabinet should not be included in 

 the provisions of this bill. I think that we may 



as well meet that question here now as in a 

 committee of conference. I was not present 

 when -this bill was passed by the Senate ; but it 

 seems to me that all the reasons why we should 

 regulate the appointment and removal of offi- 

 cers apply to the members of the Cabinet as 

 well as all others. I see no propriety in the 

 exception. I trust we shall take the vote in the 

 Senate upon the proposition, and see if we can- 

 not agree with the House ; and if it be in order, 

 I make the motion that the Senate concur in 

 the amendment of the House of Representa- 

 .tives." 



Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, said: "For one, I 

 hope we shall agree in the amendment of the 

 House. I differ entirely with the Senator from 

 Vermont in the statement he has made, that 

 this question was fully argued when it was be- 

 fore the Senate. I hardly- think any member 

 of the Senate took any particular, interest in 

 getting the amendment made except myself. I 

 was not prepared to argue it at any length, did 

 not attempt to argue it at any length. I know 

 other Senators, who were not then present, 

 think the amendment ought to be made, and 

 are prepared to give much more conclusive rea- 

 sons for the faith that is in them than I did give 

 at the time. But, above all, I have a profound 

 conviction, I have a very strong feeling, that we 

 ought not to pass this bill without making the 

 amendment. I cannot for my life conceive, I 

 could not on the occasion of that debate here, 

 the reason which I should feel like presenting 

 to the people of the United States for taking 

 from the President the power to remove post- 

 masters and collectors of customs and officers 

 of that description, and leaving in his hands the 

 power to remove the heads of departments at 

 his pleasure. 



" That the legislative department of the Gov- 

 ernment has not as complete control over the 

 question of removing the heads of the executive 

 departments as these other officers I do not 

 think was disputed the other day or will be dis- 

 puted now. It is a question of expediency, 

 then, if our power is the same, whether we 

 shall exercise this authority in reference to these 

 officers ; it is a question of expediency and not 

 of power. Upon a question of expediency I do 

 not think the Senate will insist upon ils opinion 

 against the deliberate opinion of the House of 

 Representatives. We have every reason to be- 

 lieve that the conclusion of the House of Repre- 

 sentatives was arrived at as deliberately as the 

 opinion of the Senate. If the Senate will not 

 recede from the position taken the other day 

 upon a very casual debate, is there any reason 

 for supposing that. the House of Representatives 

 will recede from the position which they have 

 taken upon a debate much more full than that 

 had in the Senate ? I think not." 



An extended debate ensued, after which the 

 question was taken, and the Senate refused to 

 concur by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Creswell, Fogg, 

 Fowler, Howard, Howe, Lane, Morrill, Pomeroy, 



