brought his Committee to the conclusion that they must meet it by specific enactment. Where the abuse appears, we must root it out. That is Radicalism. So long as a human being is held as a slave anywhere under this flag, from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, there is occasion for your powerful intervention; and if there is ambiguity or failure in existing statutes, then you must supply another statute.

PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TENURE OF OFFICE BILL, JANUARY 15, 17, AND 18, 1867.

THIS session of Congress was occupied by efforts to restrain and limit the appointing power of the President. The differences between the President and Congress increased daily. Among measures considered by Congress was a bill to regulate the tenure of offices, known as the Tenure of Office Bill.

January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved to amend this bill by adding a new 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, whose salary or compensation, derived from fees or otherwise, exceeds one thousand dollars 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 first day of July, 1866, either by the President or by the head of a Department, without the advice and consent of the Senate, shall expire on the last day of February, 1867."

Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who reported the pending bill, opposed the amendment. Mr. Sumner followed.

MR.

R. PRESIDENT,- The proposition I offer now I moved last week on another bill, in a slightly different form, but it was substantially the same. I did not then understand that there was objection to it in principle. It was opposed as not germane to the bill. in hand; or, if germane, its adoption on that bill was

-

supposed in some way to embarrass its passage. On that ground, as I understand, it was opposed, not on its merits. Senators who spoke against it avowed their partiality for it, if I understood them aright,-declared, that, if they had an opportunity on any proper bill, they would vote for it.

Well, Sir, I move it on another bill, to which I believe all will admit it is entirely germane. There is no suggestion that it is not germane. It is completely in order. But the objection of the Senator from Vermont, if I understand, is, that it may interfere with the symmetry of his bill, and introduce an element which he, who has that 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 a very strong objection.

The Senator is mistaken, if he supposes that the amendment would endanger the bill. Just the contrary. It would give the bill strength.

MR. HOWE. Merit.

MR. SUMNER. It would give it both strength and merit, because it is a measure which grows out of the exigency of the hour. His bill on a larger scale is just such a measure. It grows out of the present exigency, and this is its strength and its merit. We shall pass that, if we do pass it, and I hope we shall, -to meet a crisis. We all feel its necessity. But the measure which I now move grows equally out of the present exigency. 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, 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 extraordinary function he has exercised? He has announced in public speech that he meant to "kick out of office" present incumbents; and it was in this proceeding, that, on his return to Washington, he undertook to remove incumbents wherever he could. It cannot be doubted, Sir, that we owe protection to these incumbents, so far as possible. This is an urgent duty. If the Senator from Vermont will tell me any other way in which this can be promoted successfully, I shall gladly follow him; but until then I must insist that it shall share the fortunes of the bill, "pursue the triumph and partake the gale." If the bill succeeds, then let this measure, which is as good as the bill.

But the suggestion is made, that the amendment should be matured in a committee. Why, Sir, it is very simple. Any one can mature it who applies 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 merits have become known; and beside its discussion in open Senate, I am a witness that it has been canvassed in conversation much. Many Senators have applied their minds to it, and I may say that in offering it now I speak not merely for myself, but for others, and the proposition, in the form in which I present it, is not merely my own, but it is that of many others, to whose careful supervision it has been submitted. Therefore I say that it is matured, so far

as necessary, and there is no reason why the Senate should not act upon it. Why postpone what is in itself so essentially good? Why put off to some unknown future the chance of applying the remedy to an admitted abuse? Is there any one here who says that this is not an abuse, that here is not a tyrannical exercise of power? No one. Then, Sir, let us apply the remedy. This is the first chance we can get. Take it.

Mr. Fessenden was "not disposed to overturn a system which has recommended itself to the experience of the Government, recommended itself to the most approved mode of doing the business of the country for years, with which no fault whatever has been found in its practical operation, simply because at this time we are in this 'muss' with regard to appointments." He was "opposed utterly to the amend ment." Mr. Sumner replied:

It is very easy to answer an argument, when you begin by exaggerating consequences. Now, Sir, the Senator warns us against my proposition, because it would impose so much business upon the Senate. Is that true? He reminds us of the number of appoint'ments we should be obliged to act upon in the Internal Revenue Department. How many? The assistant assessors. What others? Those can be counted.

MR. CRAGIN. Inspectors under the internal revenue laws.

MR. SUMNER. Inspectors also: those can all be counted. He then reminds us of the officers in the custom-houses. They can all be counted. It would not act on clerks in the custom-houses; it acts only, if at all, on officers of the custom-houses, in a certain sense superior, some with considerable responsibility. They can all be counted. It is easy to say that