The Tenure- of-office Act was either right or wrong, expedient or inexpedient, Constitutional or unconstitutional, and it was easy to see that men could honestly differ as to its character in these respects.

But it was impossible to comprehend how a candid legislator could maintain the Constitutionality and expediency of the Act, and then propose to suspend it for that specific period of General Grant's administration, when, if needed at all, it would be most needed.

Within eight months next ensuing the President would probably make more removals and appointments than for the remainder of his term, and it was just for this period that Mr.Trumbull, Mr.Edmunds, and Mr.Schurz urged that the law be made inoperative,--inoperative in order that removals of Democratic office-holders for good cause, and for no cause except that they were Democrats, might in every way be expedited.
It was soon perceived that if the question before the Senate should be reduced to a choice between suspension of the Act or to total repeal, there was a danger that the majority would vote for repeal.

To avert that result, Mr.Edmunds asked to withdraw the proposition, and it was accordingly recommitted to the Judiciary Committee on the 23d of March.
On the next day Mr.Trumbull reported a substitute for the existing law, and the Senate, after brief discussion, agreed to it by _ayes_ 37, _noes_ 15.

The amendment seemed to be ingeniously framed to destroy the original Act and yet appear to maintain it in another form.