it of the Executive, but created for
the benefit of the public service, just as much as a deputy postmaster
or an Indian agent." Mr. Edmunds, in reply to Mr. Howe, said that
the Committee, "after a great deal of consultation and reflection,"
had resolved to except members of the Cabinet from the scope of the
proposed Act. He gave reasons therefor, which from the foundation of
the Government have been considered conclusive--reasons founded on the
personal and confidential relations necessarily existing between the
President and his Constitutional advisers. The reasons did not satisfy
Mr. Howe. He thought "the tenure of Cabinet officers should be under
the control of law and independent of any undue exercise of Executive
influence." He therefore moved to amend the bill so as to put the
members of the Cabinet on the same basis as other civil officers--_not
removable by the President, except with the advice and consent of the
Senate_. But the Senate was decidedly averse to so radical a change
in the practice of the Government, and Mr. Howe secured the votes of
only eight senators to join him in support of his amendment.

Mr. Edmunds moved, subsequently, to amend the bill by the addition of
several clauses, one declaring it a high misdemeanor for "any person,
contrary to the provisions of this Act, to accept any appointment or
employment in office, or to hold or attempt to hold, or exercise, any
office or employment." The signing, sealing, countersealing, or
issuing of any commission, or letter of authority, contrary to the
provisions of the Act, was made punishable by a fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or by
both. Various other provisions of great severity were incorporated,
and were adopted after brief debate.

When the bill reached the House, every provision of it was readily
agreed to except that which excluded Cabinet officers from its
operation. An amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Pennsylvania to
strike that out was defeated--_ayes_ 76, _noes_ 78. Later in the
day, just as the bill was passing its engrossment, Mr. Farquhar of
Indiana, having voted with the majority, moved to reconsider the vote
by which the amendment was rejected. The vote was taken the ensuing
day, and by the zealous work of the intervening night, the motion to
reconsider prevailed--_ayes_ 75, _noes_ 69--and the amendment was at
once adopted. The bill was then passed by a party vote