would be produced if you brought the nominations of all these minor custom-house officers who receive over $1,000 a year (and there are very few of them now who do not receive that) to the President, to be sent by him to the Senate for confirmation. It would introduce at the White House confusion worse confounded,' infinitely beyond any thing that we see there now. He would not be able to judge of the qualifications of all these various persons. It would bring all these offices into party politics in the most objectionable manner. Every man holding an office or desiring one would be besetting those supposed to have influence; and if I should continue to be a member of Congress I should not want the additional curse (for it is bad enough now) of having these minor officers all coming to me with their letters and petitions and grumbling and growling and swearing if they could not have their own way. I prefer to leave the matter to the officer who is at the head of the proper department and who is properly responsible.

"Again, there must be a proper responsibility about this. No man can take a department like the New York custom-house or Boston custom-house, and carry it on if every subordinate under him who receives $1,000 a year is at liberty to run to the President with reference to his appointment, and from the President to the Senate. It cannot be done. Then look at your internal revenue officers. There are few of those officers, none but the absolute heads of the various offices, the assessors and collectors, whose nominations are submitted to the Senate. The minor officers, assistant assessors, etc., generally receive more than $1,000 a year. If all these officers are to be sent here for confirmation, it will create additional confu

sion.

"Because we happen to have a President at the present time who is not doing what we think to be right in reference to this matter, is it worth while for us to change this system which has been found so good and beneficial for so many years? The present President, if the Senator finds fault with him, cannot live forever, cannot be President forever, unless the people choose to reëlect him from time to time. A change will come in the natural order of things, and then when we get a President to 'suit us I suppose the Senator would be for putting things back again and taking away this power. We should look rather small and trifling to do any thing of that kind. Therefore I repeat what I said: let us do what is necessary, under the contingency, to protect the position and the constitutional rights of the Senate itself with reference to appointments, and not 'run the thing into the ground' by taking every possible power out of the hands of, not of the President, for it is not in his hands now, but out of the hands of the heads of departments, and taking every thing to ourselves to act upon."

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, said: "I rise, sir, merely to correct what seems to be a mis

apprehension of honorable Senators as to the number of persons removed by the President during the past year. Now, sir, it appears upon an examination that the whole number of offices within the gift of the President amounts to two thousand four hundred and thirty-four. He has that number of appointments; and the whole number of removals amount to four hundred and forty-six. I mean civil offices. I suppose it will not be contended here that there is any especial virtue in a simple majority which entitles it to the offices. No man can give any reason why three hundred thousand voters in a State should have all the offices in the State, while two hundred and ninety-five thousand voters in that State have no offices at all. Not even those who assail the President most sternly and unrelentingly I think will argue that there is any justice and any propriety in that. If these offices belong to anybody and for any other purpose than the public service itself, and if there is to be any rule adopted for the guidance of the appointing power, perhaps that practice is just as good as any other; but the minority would be entitled to its share as well. Now, I suppose it is fair enough to assume that at the commencement of last year these two thousand four hundred and thirty-four officers were all members of the dominant party.

"As I see my honorable friend from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) in his seat now, I beg to call his attention to another thing. It was stated by him that of the two thousand removals made, not one hundred had been sent in to the Senate.' The number that has been sent in is three hundred and fifty-seven, and I believe the Senate have acted upon but five. I do not think that my honorable friend desired to exaggerate about this matter, and I have no idea that he was desirous still further to disturb the state of feeling now existing in the country by putting things in a worse light than they really are; but that is the fact. Four hundred and forty-six removals out of twenty-four hundred have been made; three hundred and fifty-seven of those have been sent to the Senate, and five of them have been disposed of by the Senate. Now, sir, it is unquestionably unjust to complain of the President, that he has not sent all the names into the Senate, when he is ahead this session three hundred and fifty-two appointments now, and they are not yet acted upon."

Mr. Williams: "I ask the Senator if that includes military appointments?"

Mr. Cowan: "Oh, no, civil appointments; and I will state the number of removals that have been made in the different departments, as I have taken the trouble to get the information on that subject. In the Department of State there are three hundred and forty appointments, and there have been ten new ones made. In the Treasury Department there are nine hundred and seventy-three appointments, and there have been one hundred and ninety-nine changes. In the Department of the Interior there are two hundred and ten appointments, and there have

been twenty-one changes. In the Post-Office Department there are seven hundred and nine appointments, and there have been one hundred and ninety-seven changes. In the office of the Attorney-General there are two hundred and two appointments, and there have been nineteen changes."

Mr. Grimes: "What do you mean by 'appointments?""

Mr. Cowan : "Presidential appointments. Now, sir, there is the sum and substance of all this matter, and what does it amount to? What is there alarming in it? Nothing alarming to anybody except to somebody who is afraid of being turned out of office; that is all.

"Then the question arises, how long are these people to remain in office? Is any dominant party in this country willing to put itself upon the ground that they, once in, shall remain and continue in? I am very free to say that if I understand the feeling of the American people, it is directly against that system of perpetuating one man in office. It has been said here that the ballot educates; we ought to give the ballot to men and women to educate them. It is clear that offices educate, too, and hence the old doctrine of rotation in office. One of the merits of this Government is, that the offices are within the reach of every man; but if, when a party gets in and gets control of the offices, gets a dominant majority, they determine that the President shall not remove unless with their consent, what is that but saying, 'We have the key in our hands and will lock the door and keep ourselves in and every one else out.'

Here a question of order was raised by Mr. McDougall, of California, which occupied the Senate during the remainder of the session. The debate was renewed on the next day.

Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "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 rebellion. Though the head of the executive, he has rapaciously seized the powers of the legislative, and made himself a whole Congress 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 illegitimate powers, he has become a terror to the good and a support to the wicked. This is his great and unpardonable offence, 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? It is found in public acts which are beyond question. It is already written in the history of our country. And now in the maintenance of his usurpation he has employed the power of removal from office. Some, who would not become the partisans of his tyranny he has, according to his own language, 'kicked out.' Others are left, 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 partisans. 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 was 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 exercise 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 interfering with a system handed down from our fathers, or worse still, that you have littlo sympathy with this suffering. This will not do. You must apply the remedy, or fail in duty. Especially must you apply it when, as on the present occasion, this wrong is part of an enormous usurpation 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 felt in 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 President. 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 protection. But the brutal language which the President has employed shows the spirit in which he has acted. The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Hendricks), whose judgment could not approve 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 the 13th of September last it thus reports what our Chief Magistrate said in his speech at St. Louis:

I believe that one set of men have enjoyed the emoluments of office long enough, and they should let another portion of the people have a chance. How are these men to be got out unless your Executive can put them out-unless you can reach them through the President? Congress says he shall not turn them out, and they are trying to pass laws to prevent it being done. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action-if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance-to have soldiers and citizens to participate in these offices-God be willing, I will kick them out; I will kick them out just as fast as I can.

"Such language as this is without precedent. Coming from the President, it is a declaration of 'policy' which it is your duty to counteract; and in this duty you must make a precedent, 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. Edinunds) 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, appointment, or employment of persons whose offices, according to existing law and Constitution, 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 indirectly for the protection of the citizen..

We are in the midst of a crisis. On one side is the President, and on the other the people. It is the old question between prerogative and Parliament which occupied our English fathers. But the form it now takes is grander than ever before. In this controversy I am with the people and against the President. I have great faith in the people; but I have no faith in the President. Îlere, sir, I close what I have to say at this time. But before I take my seat, you will pardon me if I read a brief lesson, which seems as if written for the hour. The words are as beautiful as emphatic:

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

"These are the words of Abraham Lincoln.

They are as full of vital force now as when he uttered them. I entreat you not to neglect the lesson. Learn from its teaching how to save our country.".

Mr. Edmunds: "I do not rise to prolong the debate on this amendment more than a few moments; but I think it right to say, in reply to my friend from Massachusetts, for whose opinions upon fundamental questions I have always entertained the highest respect, that I

think upon reflection he will himself admit by and by that there are many theories which are absolutely perfect in themselves that cannot be carried into practice. There are many things that it would be exceedingly desirable to do if, as human nature goes and as human organizations are, they could be actually effected. It would be highly desirable if the will of the people of this country could be carried into the remotest detail of the Government, because that is the fundamental theory. It is, in theory, the duty of the hour in all democratic governments that the people's will should go to the uttermost artery and vein of the administration of a people's government; but every man in his senses knows perfectly well that no such chimera can be carried into practice. The people are numerous. They cannot act individually or collectively together as a body. They must select their chief agents. Their chief agents must select subordinates, and those subordinates again must have more or less discretion in selecting the agencies which, under them, are to carry out the practical operations of the business of the Government.

"Now, the question on the amendment of my friend is simply this: first, whether it be desirable for the President and the Senate of the United States to occupy their time, no matter whether they are in opposition or in accord, in discussing the particular merits of A against B for a night-watchman in the city of New York or for an inspector of customs in the city of Boston."

The amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Conness, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Ram. sey, Sprague, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Yates-16. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cowan, Cragin, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Forg, Foster, Hendricks, Johnson, Nesmith, Patterson, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams-21.

ABSENT-Messrs. Cattell, Creswell, Davis, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Guthrie, Henderson, Kirkwood, McDougall, Norton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ross, Stewart, and

Trumbull-15.

Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, offered as an amendment to strike out the following words of the first section:

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 rejected-yeas 13, nays 27. The amendments made in Committee of the Whole were concurred in, and the bill was passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill, Poland, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-29.

little, Hendricks, Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle, and

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Dixon, Doo.

Saulsbury-9.

ABSENT-Messrs. Creswell, Davis, Fowler, Guth

Excepting the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General.

The amendment was disagreed to-yeas 76, nays 78.

A motion was subsequently made to reconsider this vote, which the House refused to lay on the table-yeas 60, nays 74. 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: YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bidwell, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, 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, Kuykendall, 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. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Windom-111.

NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, Cooper, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hise, Hogan, Ed win N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Hunter, Le Blond, Leftwich, McCullough, Niblack, 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, Benjamin, Bingham, Brandagee, Chanler, Culver, Darling, Delano, Denison, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, Jones, Kelso, Kerr, Ketcham, Latham, Marshall, Marston, McClurg, McIndoe, 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. Trumbull, 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 members 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 officers 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 cannot 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 Representatives."

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 before 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 reasons 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 postmasters 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 Government 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 disputed 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 its opinion against the deliberate opinion of the House of Representatives. We have every reason to believe that the conclusion of the House of Representatives 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,

Ramsey, Ross, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson, and Yates-17.

Nars-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cattell, Conness, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Patterson, Poland, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, and Williams-28. ABSENT--Messrs. Cragin, Guthrie, Morgan, Nye, Sprague, Van Winkle, and Willey-7.

A committee of conference reported as follows:

That the Senate agree to the first amendment of

the House with an amendment as follows: at the end of section one of said bill, insert the following words: Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter, subject to, removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

And the Senate agree to the same. That the Senate recede from their disagreement to the second amendment of the House, and agree to the same.

The House agreed to the report by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandagee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Deming, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farcabar, Ferry, Grinnell, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, Johu H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Koontz, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Myers, Newell, 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, Starr, Stevens, Stokes, Thayer, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Hamilton Ward, Warner, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-111.

NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, Chanler, Cooper, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Gossbrenner, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hawkins,

Hise, Humphrey, Hunter, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Leftwich, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stilwell, Taber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Nelson Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Andrew II. Ward, Whaley, and Wright-41.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Baker, Barker, Bingham, Bundy, Conkling, Culver, Davis, Dawes, Detrees, Delano, Dixon, Eckley, Garfield, Goodyear, Griswold, Hale, Hogan, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubhard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Jenckes, Jones, Marshall, Marston, McClurg, Moorhead, Morrl, Morris, Moulton, Noell, O'Neill, Phelps, Strouse, Francis Thomas, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, and Winfield-38.

In the Senate, the report was concurred in by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Con* Fozz, Fowler, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman,

On March 2d, the President returned the bill to the House with his objections, when it was reconsidered and passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Brandagee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hawkins, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, Wil liam Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marquette, Marston, Marvin, Maynard, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, 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, Starr, Stokes, Thayer, Francis Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Hamilton

Ward, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-133.

NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, Chanler, Cooper, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Aaron Harding, Hise, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Hunter, Jones, Le Blond, Leftwich, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Radford, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Taber, Nelson Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, and Winfield-87.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Blow, Culver, Denison, Driggs, Harris, Demas Hubbard, Kelso, Kerr, Kuykendall, Latham, Noell, Phelps, Samuel J. Randall, Rousseau, Stevens, Stilwell, Nathaniel G. Taylor, John L. Thomas, Elihu B. Washburne, Whaley, and Wright-21.

In the Senate, the bill was reconsidered on March 2d, and passed by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cragin, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Foster, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates--35.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Johnson, Nesmith, Norton, Patterson, and Saulsbury-11.

ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Creswell, Guthrie, Howe, McDougall, and Riddle-6.

In the House, on January 21st, Mr. Ward, of New York, offered the following:

Whereas, by the constitution and laws of the State of Maryland, persons who were disloyal to the Government of the United States, or gave aid and en