Mr. Trumbull: "Except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Mr. Sherman: "That is after the session is over. If there is a man who has held an office during all the years of the war, and received its emoluments, he shall not be turned out and a Union soldier without a leg or an arm put in, or if put in, that soldier shall not draw his pay until the Senate meets and passes upon the reasons for the removal; and then if the Senate does not think the removal is sufficiently justifiable by the reasons stated, he shall not have any pay at all. That is the effect of this proVision. This, therefore, does not reach the purpose contemplated by the Senator from Illinois. His purpose, I know, is to prevent the President from removing men for their political opinions; that we all know to be the purpose; but the President has, by the very terms of the amendment, the power to remove. All he has got to do is to give us a reason, whether that reason is wise or unwise, sufficient or insufficient. He may give us a reason, and turn us off with a reason. Reasons are as plenty as blackberries. He may say he removes a man because he is a civilian and the person he appoints was a soldier.

"Well, take the case of an assessor or a collector or a consul or a diplomatic minister, and the thousands of officers covered by this amendment. Cabinet officers cannot be removed and anybody put in, rebel or loyal, except at the risk of not getting any pay in case the Senate disapproves the reasons for the removal. This amendment does not prevent the President from removing any man he chooses, and he may give Ds a reason or not just as he pleases; the removal is complete and perfect by the will of the President; so that the amendment accomplishes nothing. It is true, the man who takes the office cannot draw his pay until the Senate meets; but do you punish the President, do you cripple his power, do you limit his control over the public officers? Do you accomplish what you desire to accomplish? Not at all. You may punish some poor devil who is compelled to exercise the duties of an office and not get zny pay for it; but you do not hurt the President or hurt his feelings. The result will be that good men, poor men, may be deterred from repting office under these conditions, while ed men or rich men may be indifferent to the alary attached to the office. I say, therefore, with due deference to the Senator from Illinois, that the amendment does not accomplish the purpose that he has in view; it does not limit or control the power of the President over the public officers, but simply aggravates a controTersy which may never arise.

"Now, sir, there is a way, I think, in which this matter can be accomplished-not by an mendment to an appropriation bill; not by a Emitation of this character; but by the exerse of the power of Congress over the duraon and term of the various public officers. Although it has been somewhat questioned at

different times since the foundation of the Government, yet, as I have said before, I do not believe it has ever been successfully controverted that Congress may regulate the duration and term of a public officer, may limit the power of the President to remove him, may declare that such and such an officer shall not be removed except for such and such a cause. But a bill of that kind must be made with many discriminations, must be made after much care. There are certain officers that the President ought to have the absolute power of removing; I can name Cabinet officers: it would be intolerable that the President should be expected to carry on the business of this great Government with a Cabinet council over whose members he had not the power of removal, the complete and absolute power. For that reason, hostile political parties have often confirmed the Cabinet ministers of a President of opposite politics, on the ground that the President, from the very necessity of the case, must have the power of removing Cabinet ministers and appointing such as he chooses. He must administer those great offices through his personal friends, and no party would require him to appoint any but personal friends around him to these great offices. He must, therefore, have power over the Cabinet ministers. So, too, he must have a power over the diplomatic corps in a great measure. Those are officers appointed to represent our country abroad, holding confidential relations with the Secretary of State, and therefore the power over those officers ought not to be limited or controlled or crippled by Congress. But there are classes of officers who ought to hold their offices independent of the power of removal by the President-assessors, collectors, postmasters, and other officers who really may exercise political power; that ought by the law to be secured from unjust and arbitrary removal; and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Congress from passing a law on the subject, securing those officers in the discharge of their duties.

"Mr. President, Congress has power over this subject much more ample than is generally supposed. Congress may prescribe that the judges of the Supreme Court or heads of Departments or courts of law may make a great variety of appointments. The provision of the Constitution is that Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments.'

The motion to reconsider was agreed to as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Lane of Kansas, McDou gall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-21.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, ConLane of Indiana, Morrill, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, ness, Creswell, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, and Wade-18.

A motion was now made and passed to strike out the last clause of the amendment; whereupon Mr. Trumbull offered as amendment to the amendment his original proposition, which was as follows:

Sec.. And be it further enacted, That no person exercising or performing, or undertaking to exercise or perform, the duties of any office which by law is required to be filled by the advice and consent of the Senate, shall before confirmation by the Senate receive any salary or compensation for his services, unless such person be commissioned by the President to fill up a vacancy which has happened by death, resignation, or expiration of term, during the recess of the Senate and since its last adjournment.

This was agreed to. An extended debate now ensued on the policy of the Administration, etc., in which Messrs. Wilson of Massachusetts, Cowan of Pennsylvania, Doolittle of Wisconsin, and others engaged. Subsequently the amendment was rejected by the following

vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Morrill, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, and Wade-16. NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Van Winkle, Willey, and Wilson--23. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Grimes, Hendricks, Kirkwood, Williams, Wright, and Yates-10.

In the House, on May 7th, Mr. Julian, of Indiana, offered the following resolution :

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill providing that bereafter the elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged in any of the Territories of the United States on account of race or color; and providing further, and thereby giving notice of the fact, that henceforward no State which the people of any of said Territories may organize shall be admitted into the Union whose constitution shall sanction such denial or abridgment of the elec

tive franchise.

A motion was made to lay it on the table, which was lost by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Boyer, Coffroth, Dawson, Delano, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Gloss brenner, Grider, Griswold, Aaron Harding, James R. Hubbell, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, Newell, Niblack, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Rogers, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Taylor, Thornton, and Whaley-29.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Reader W. Clark, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferry, Garfield, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Henderson, Holmes, Hooper, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Julian, Kas

son, Ketcham, Laflin, William Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Morris, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Schofield, Stevens, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Williams, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-76.

The resolution was then adopted. The ses sion of Congress closed on July 28th. Three hundred and eighteen acts and one hundred and eight resolutions were passed. Those re lating to the finances of the Government, tar ation, the system of weights and measures, etc., are noticed elsewhere in this volume.

CONNECTICUT. The political canvass in this State commenced early in the year, and, from causes unconnected with local questions or is sues, assumed toward its close an interest and importance which fixed upon it the attention of the whole country. On February 7th, the Democrats met in convention at Hartford, to nominate candidates for Governor and other State officers. Origen S. Seymour, who had been the candidate of the party for Governor at the two previous elections, declined a renomi nation; and lest this act should be imputed to a change of views by him, he announced in a letter to the convention that, in his judgment, "the position of the Democratic party on all the great questions of the day was never more satis factory than at present." "We are all, I take it," he added, "for preserving the Constitution as it is; for healing the wounds of the Union; and for treating every part of our common country with fairness and justice. We are I suppose, united in opposition to the sectionalism of the party in power-in opposition to the assaults by that party upon the Constit tion, and in opposition to the recent outrage by that party, in Congress, upon the sacred right of representation." The convention nominated for Governor, James E. English, who had rep resented the second Congressional district in the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congress, and had voted for the Constitutional Amendment abolishing slavery; for Lieutenant-Governor, Ephraim H. Hyde; for Secretary of State, des Olney; for Treasurer, Heman H. Barbour; ani for Comptroller, Thomas H. C. Kingsbury. The resolutions adopted by the convention affirel that Congress possesses no power under the Constitution to determine who shall be eligible to the right of suffrage, and that any attempt to force upon the people of a State a class of inhabitants as citizens and voters is a violatie of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and an infringement of State rights; that the State which attempted to secede were never out of the Union, and having recently declared null and void their pretended acts of secession, and expressed their devotion to the Union and the Constitution, are of right entitled to all the privileges and powers of States belonging to and exercised by them previous to their at tempted secession; that the late Confederate States, having adopted the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, and the Gov ernment of the United States having, in conse quence, recognized said States, any attempt by Congress to prevent the representation of sach States in the national councils is "deserving of the severest reprehension of the people of each and every State;" and that "the distinguished

citizen now occupying the presidential chair, by his earnest efforts for the restoration of the Union upon its proper basis-by his manly and statesmanlike position in opposition to negro suffrage-by his resistance to the insane and unwise efforts of a Congressional majority, who seek to destroy the Constitution of our fathers by mischievous amendments-has deserved well of his country; and a courageous perseverance in the course so taken will place the name of Andrew Johnson high upon the roll of renown, and second to none of the great statesmen who have illustrated the annals of the Union."

The Republican State Convention met at Hartford on February 14th. It numbered over four hundred delegates, comprising a large number of the leading men of the party, and was distinguished by harmony and ability. William A. Buckingham, who had been the Republican candidate for Governor for the seven previous years, having declined a renomination, Joseph R. Hawley, late a brigadier-general of volunteers in the United States Army, was nominated for Governor in his stead on the first ballot, and accepted the nomination in a speech to the convention. F. Winchester was then nominated for Lieutenant-Governor; L E. Pease for Secretary of State; Henry G. Taintor for Treasurer; and Robbins Battell for Comptroller. Among the resolutions adopted was one expressing confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of the Republican majority in Congress, and one heartily approving the recent order of General Terry, approved by the President, for the protection of the freedmen of Virginia against the legislation of that State. The two following expressed the sentiments of the convention respecting Presidents Lincoln and Johnson:

Raolced, That we unite our lamentations with those of the nation over the grave of the honest, unflinching, patriotic, and great-hearted Abraham Lincoln, whose name will stand by the side of that of Washington while the Republic endures.

Resolved, That we gladly express our confidence in the integrity, ability, and patriotism of his successor, Andrew Johnson, who braved secession in the Senate, and defied armed rebellion in Tennessee; who sprang from the people, and is identified with all their interests; and we do pledge him our hearty support in his labors for a just, complete, and permanent restration of the Union.

On February 19th, less than a week after the meeting of the Republican Convention, PresiCent Johnson returned the Freedmen's Bureau till to Congress with his veto. Although not wholly unprepared for this act, the party which had elected him, and had hitherto given him its support, was at first uncertain what course to pursue-whether to break with the President, or to endeavor to reconcile the differences between himself and Congress. And in no State was this more noticeable than in Connecticut, where a strong conservative element had always existed in the Republican ranks. The Democrats, on the other hand, avowed themselves heartily in favor of the political views em

bodied in the President's veto message, and of his whole plan of restoring the Southern States to their relations with the Union. For several weeks after the State canvass commenced, both parties, as represented by their platforms, supported the President's restoration policy, and many of the Republicans who sided with Congress on the Freedmen's Bureau question were inclined to believe that the differences between that body and the Executive were merely differences of opinion as to the best means to be employed in reconstructing the Union, and not as to the end to be attained, and could eventually be reconciled. Others, however, were prepared, if necessary, to break with the President, should a reconciliation prove to be impossible. Under these circumstances the election began gradually to assume an importance which lifted it from the arena of local politics. The success of the Democratic ticket, it was supposed, would indicate an unqualified approval by the people of Connecticut of the Executive policy, while the return of the Republican candidates would leave the issue undecided.

Rumors meanwhile began to be circulated that the President would throw the weight of his influence in favor of Mr. English, the Democratic candidate, and would require all Connecticut officeholders to vote for him. This was denied by Mr. Johnson in an interview with a delegation of Connecticut Republicans, headed by General Hawley, in which he also said that, though by no means desirous to interfere with the local elections of any State, he would be pleased, in the present instance, to see his political friends successful. Equally strong evidence respecting the President's sympathies was afforded by James F. Babcock, Collector of New Haven, and an intimate personal friend, who, on hearing the rumor that Federal officeholders would be expected to vote for English, went to Washington, and sought an interview with Mr. Johnson. "I told him," he observed in a speech delivered at a public meeting in New Haven shortly afterward, "if this rumor were true, I must, of necessity, resign my position, feeling it incompatible with honor to retain it under such a condition. This statement the President assured me was totally false. Instead of demanding votes for Mr. English, he was opposed to his election, because he represented the principles of the party which had opposed the nation in its struggle for self-preservation." The following communication, addressed by Mr. Babcock and another citizen of Connecticut to the Washington Chronicle, may be considered to represent the views of a considerable number of the party with which they were affiliated: WASHINGTON CITY, March 22, 1866.

In an editorial article of the Chronicle of this morning, we understand you to favor the idea that the result of the New Hampshire election is in some respects a verdict against the Union policy of President Johnson, and an approval of the action of Congress, so far as that action is at variance with the desires of the President; and you also intimate, as we understand you, that the election of General Hawley in

Connecticut may be justly interpreted in the same

way.

If this be your meaning, we beg leave to say, in advance, that such an inference and such a use of the election of General Hawley would be a gross perversion of the truth, and wholly contrary to the assurances publicly and privately given by General Hawley, who, it is admitted, could not be elected but by the aid of the friends of the President and his policy. Yet we do not claim that this policy is involved in the issue of this election, and we therefore protest in advance against any such inference; and if such a use is made of that election, we assure you that the effect will be injurious to the Union organization.

The question may be asked why the Conservatives of Connecticut do not act with the other organization which has unreservedly avowed its support to the President's policy? Our answer is, that we have more confidence in the men who have proved their loyalty on the fields of battle, and by their efforts to sustain the Government in the darkest periods of the war, than in those who sought to discourage enlistments, destroy the credit of the Government, and give aid and comfort to the rebels; and whom we cannot trust with their cheap professions, even though they head their ticket with a gentleman whose war record is not so objectionable, but whose accommodating temper is such that he allows himself to be used to advance the interest of a party whose loyalty was tried and found wanting.

We are also firm in our belief that the President prefers to settle this contest inside of the Union party, giving those of the opposite side who are sincere in their professions the opportunity of throwing their strength where it most properly belongs, namely, into that portion of the Union party which is confessedly in harmony with their views.

JAMES F. BABCOCK,

F. W. SMITH, Jr.

The Democrats were not less desirous than their opponents to obtain an expression of opinion from the President respecting the State election, and on March 23d, a delegation of the party, consisting of A. E. Burr and C. M. Ingersoll, had a long interview with him, of which, on the succeeding day, they published an account in the newspapers. From their statement it appears that the President complained that his remarks had not been correctly reported by the Republican delegation which had recently visited him. He desired, he said, the success of the Union party, meaning by the Union party at that time the party which supported his Union restoration policy, and no others. Those who opposed his policy he regarded as not belonging to that party, and the success of his policy, he said, depended the welfare of the Union. The following passages from the report of Messrs. Burr and Ingersoll,

upon

further illustrate the views of Mr. Johnson:

The President then remarked that Messrs. Owen and Griswold [of the Republican delegation] should have reported him as saying that he was the friend of those who supported his policy, and the opponent of those who oppose it. "The question," said he, "of my restoration policy is now the paramount question, and all who oppose it are my opponents."

We assured the President that if those gentlemen had so telegraphed his remarks, we should not have been here this evening.

The President then said: "The principles of my restoration policy are fundamental. No man can approve of my policy and that of Congress at the same time. That is impossible." In New Hampshire it was claimed that both policies were supported, which,

of course, could not be; but after the election it was claimed that a radical victory had been achieved. He trusted the people would not now be deceived.

At that interview the following letter from E. S. Cleveland, postmaster at Hartford, and recently a member of the Republican party, was communicated to the President:

POST-OFFICE, HARTFORD, CONN., March 22, 1866 To President Johnson:

SIR: I am now engaged in publicly advocating the election of James E. English as candidate for Governor of Connecticut-a gentleman who is openly committed to the support of your veto, to the defence of your 22d of February speech, and of your policy of restoration in opposition to the disunionists

of Connecticut.

I am opposing the election of General Joseph R. Hawley, who openly disapproved of your veto and of your 22d of February speech, and declines to support your policy as opposed to the radical majority in Congress. If my political action is not satisfactory to you, I beg you to receive my resignation as postmaster of this city.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, E. S. CLEVELAND.

Burr and Ingersoll, with the following indorseThis was immediately returned to Messrs. ment:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 23, 1866, Your political action in upholding my measures and policy is approved. Your resignation is, there fore, not accepted, but is herewith returned.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

From the middle of March the interest in the election was greatly enhanced, and it soon be came the absorbing topic of discussion or conversation throughout the State. Both parties sought the services of their most effective speakers from all parts of the country, and a more thorough canvass of a State was probably never had for a number of years been classed among attempted. Connecticut, politically speaking.

the doubtful States; for, notwithstanding she since the formation of that party, the majority had annually been carried by the Republicans was often very small in proportion to the total vote. In the present instance the result seemed

more than ever involved in doubt. At the Lincoln did not reach 2,500 in a total vote of presidential election of 1864 the majority for nearly 87,000; and although in 1865 Governor Buckingham had a majority of over 11,000, there was no relative increase of the Republican less than in the previous year. As the day of vote, while the total vote was upward of 13,000 election (April 24) approached, the current of opinion in the Republican party was observed to tend more strongly toward the views of reconstruction held by Congress, though many voters still wavered between the Congressional and the Executive policy. On March 15th the Civil Rights Bill, having passed both Houses of Congress, was sent to the President for his ap proval. Almost immediately rumors of another veto became prevalent, which were verified or the 27th by the return of the bill to Congres without the Executive approval. This act seem ed for the moment almost to demoralize the Republican party in Connecticut. But six day

intervened before the election, and in that time Congress took no action upon the veto by which party movements could be controlled, nor was any opportunity afforded for consultation among the leaders. The act of the President was, however, considered to have practically severed his relations with the Republican party, and it was believed that the election of Hawley would, under the circumstances indicate that the Executive policy was distasteful to the people of Connecticut. During these last six days of the canvass the efforts of either party to bring out their full strength were redoubled, and, amidst almost unparalleled excitement, the election took place with the following result:

2,430 2,152 3,113 3,107

44,693 42,288 For Lincoln, 2,405

Maj. for Hawley, 541. The total vote, 87,407, was the largest ever cast in the State, being 426 in excess of that of 1864, and 13,690 larger than the vote for Governor in 1865. The Republican vote was 719 less than that of 1864, and the Democratic vote 1,145 greater, showing a net gain to the latter of 1,864 votes. The Republican candidate for Lieutenant-Governor received a majority several hundred higher than General Hawley, and the remaining candidates of the party were elected by majorities of 1,200 and upward. The average Republican majority was therefore about 1,000. The political complexion of the Legislature, returned at the same election, was as follows:

46

5

Joint ballot.

154

103

51

Rep. maj.... The Legislature convened on May 2d, and was organized by the choice of John T. Wait as president pro tem. of the Senate, and David Gallup as Speaker of the House of Representatives. On the same day Governor Hawley and the other State officers elect were inducted into office. In his inaugural address, Governor Hawley entered somewhat fully into national ffairs, declaring that, though the nation looked orward with impatience to the time when all he late insurgent States should be restored to Their relations with the Union, it would never consent that any but loyal men should receive its favor, or sit among its rulers. "When States declare themselves," he said, "out of the Union,

and bring their citizens with great unanimity to make desperate war during four years upon the republic, and then failing only through lack of physical force, declare themselves in the Union, truly devoted to its principles and entitled immediately to the exercise and enjoyment of all their previous powers and rights, we may and do give honorable heed to their words; but it is the nation's right and duty to examine fully the new organization of those States, learn the purposes of the new rulers thereof, and test the whole by the legislative action they take, and by the security and happiness enjoyed by the steadfastly and unquestionably loyal among them. * ** * The war having been a success, we must affirm that it effected the destruction of slavery in fact as well as in name, the abandonment, as a rule of action, of the perpetually disorganizing doctrine of secession, security against any taxation to pay debts contracted in aid of treason, and full protection, safety, and honor everywhere for the rights of all loyal citizens, without distinction of race or color. These things were fairly won; they look to security for the future, and are not a part of any idle claim to indemnity for the past; they are not selfishly sought for a class or a party, but demanded for all mankind; and they are essential to the success and glory of a Christian democratic government."

Governor Buckingham, upon retiring from office, after seven years' tenure of the gubernatorial chair, sent a valedictory message to the Legislature, giving some account of the expenditures of the State during the war, and of the means taken to settle the outstanding claims against the General Government. He declined to accept the sum of $3,000, voted to him by a previous Legislature, in consideration of extra personal services rendered by him during the war. He took strong grounds against President Johnson's policy of reconstruction, urging that the reorganized governments of the rebel States should secure to every citizen equal rights and equal protection before the law, and that these governments should be administered in such a manner as to give liberty to each member of the body politic in accordance with the advancing spirit of Christian civilization.

The Legislature adjourned on June 30th, after a session of fifty-nine days, which was fourteen days longer than that prescribed by law, during which the members are entitled to receive pay. On May 23d, Orris S. Ferry, late a brigadiergeneral of volunteers, was elected a United States Senator, to succeed Lafayette S. Foster, whose term would expire on March 4, 1867. The chief competitors of General Ferry, in the Republican caucus, were Senator Foster and Governor Buckingham. On June 25th the Constitutional Amendment, adopted by Congress, was ratified by the Senate of Connecticut by a vote of eleven to six, and on the 27th by the House of Representatives, by a vote of one hundred and twenty-five to eighty-eight. The vote was a party one in both branches of the