Now,  sir,  I  freely  admit  that  considerable
benefit  has  arisen  from  this  law.  I  agree  that
it  has,  in  some  instances  secured  promptitude,
diligence,  and  a  sense  of  responsibility.  These
were  the  benefits  which  those  who  passed  the
law,  expected  from  it;  and  these  benefits  have,
in  some  measure,  been  realized.  But  I  think
that  this  change  in  the  tenure  of  office,  together
with  some  good,  has  brought  along  a  far  more
than  eauivalent  amount  of  evil.  By  the  opera-
tion of  this  law,  the  President  can  deprive  a
man  of  office  without  taking  the  responsibility
of  removing  him.  The  law  itself  vacates  the
office,  and  gives  the  means  of  rewarding  a  friend
without  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  removal
at  all  Here  is  increased  power,  with  dimin-
ished responsibility.    Here  is  a  still  greater  de-


pendence for  the  means  of  livinff  on  executive
favor,  and  of  course  a  new  dommion  acquired
over  opinion  and  ovor  conduct  The  power  of
removal  is^  or  at  least  formerly  was,  a  suspected
and  odious  i>ower.  Public  opinion  would  not
always  tolerate  it ;  and  still  less  fluently  did
it  approve  it.  Something  of  character,  some-
thing of  the  respect  of  the  intelligent  and  patri-
otic part  of  the  community,  was  lost  by  every
instance  of  its  unnecessary  exercise.  This  was
some  restraint.  But  the  law  of  1820  is>dk  it
aU  away.  It  vacated  offices  periodically  by  its
own  operation,  and  thus  adaed  to  the  power
of  removal,  which  it  left  still  existing  in  full
force,  a  new  and  extraordinary  facility  for  the
extension  of  patronage,  influence,  and  favorit-
ism.
