and will entirely fail of results except to weaken and besmirch the administration itself. "The failures to coerce his discretion, even his unfairness and his infidelity to the policy of the administration in the distribution of the subordinate appointments, are by no means the strongest grounds on which to place his removal. On the contrary, I think it a godsend that he has furnished other grounds proved to your hands, of impregnable strength, on which to justify a removal made necessary by petty wrongs and frauds, but now becomes at once indispensable at the hands of the administration and capable of being done without loss of dignity. "There is still another ground besides those mentioned where the movement in this State has for its _avowed_ object to compel the President to remove his Cabinet. This object is daily manifest through the press and by speeches and by resolutions. The Collector has taken open part with this movement, and, while disclaiming these objects, he is fairly to be held to concur in them, and I presume nobody has any doubt that he, in fact, does so. He at the same time holds an office of most power and of more importance to the administration than any member of the Cabinet. Now is it possible to suppose that if a member of the Cabinet were taking part in public meetings of men, whose object was to expel the rest of the Cabinet, the administration could omit to interfere in the matter without a total loss of all public respect? The principle that the heads of the departments should be in relations of harmony and confidence with the President has been applied as much to the Collectorship of this port as to the Cabinet offices, and with at least as much reason. Prudence as well as principle has always sustained the President through all change of parties and of individuals in bringing the chief officers of the government into this harmony with it whenever he has found them otherwise. These are the grounds on which the removal of Bronson should be placed, and his unfairness and infidelity to the policy of the administration in appointments only incidental as constituting or being part of a systematic abuse of the appointing power to aid his general object. This latter should be very incidental. "It is important that the issue should be made on _his_ conduct and in its moral, general, and public aspect, and not on the conduct of the administration in interfering with his appointments. It is important, in a word, that the administration should have the _affirmative_ of the issue--that it should be charging the attacking party, and not the defending. "You are now pausing on the edge of a marsh, when you should be in full march on solid ground, so at least it seems to me nothing remains but to recover as soon as possible a firm and strong position. "If Bronson answers at once, his reply will afford the occasion for an instant removal.