Mr. SHERMAN. I will withdraw the present amendment. I desire to offer another amendment as an additional section. It is the bill which I introduced at the beginning of the session and referred to the ComJudiciary, and which has been fully considered. It is to insert as aning: additional section the follow Abife: That no money shall be paid from the Treasury of the U.S. to any person who, having been nominated for any office and been rejected by the Senate, and subsequently appointed to ary, fees, perqthuaistitoefsf, ice by the President, for any sal or expensesaccruing after the close of the session of the Senate during which his nomination was rejected; and if any person shall appoint or sign or prepare such an appointment or commission, or if any person so rejected, and reappointed shall hold or exercise the functions of the office for which he was rejected by the Senate, after the closeof the session of the Senate at which he was rejected, or if any accounting or disbursing officer shall allow or pay to any person so rejected any sal : fees, perquisites, or expenses accruing, for that c after the close of the session of the Senate at which he was rejected, he shall be deemed guilty of A misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding $10,000, or at the discretion of by the earsc.ourt shall be inprisoned not more than 5 I will state that this section was drawn early in the session, printed, and referred to the ComJudiciary, and the chairman of that committee stated to me it was not acted upon because of the pendency of this bill, the subject being before another committee, and upon the statement that it could then be offered when the bill came up. It is intended to provide for cases that have actually occurred, where the President has sent a nomination to the Senate which has been rejected, and yet in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, of the meaning of the Constitution, the President insists upon keeping that person in office, and again appoints him to office and sends his name again to the Senate. It is intended to meet the very casementioned by the Senfrom Maryland o: Joh Nson] the other day. I do not think there ought to be any real objection to it. I can scarcely conceive a case in which the President would be justified in entirely ignoring the opinion of the Senate on a matter in which it has equal constitutional power with himself. This section is so drawn as not to prevent the President from sending the name of a re. jected person again to the Senate, so as to enable them to reconsider the nomination. If a rejection has been made upon misadvertence or false statements of fact, the President may again send that name to the Senate at a subsequent session; nothing in this amendment will prevent it; but in the mean time he would be bound to respect the judgment of the senate so far as to appoint some one else to fill the office until the close of the following session. Then he may at the next session send in the name to the Senate and they may reconsider the nomination of the person formerly rejected; so that it does not operate as an exclusion from office, or a denial of the power to hold that particular office. It simply provides that the judgment of the Senate.so far respected that until the nomination is again submitted to the Senate and confirmed that person shall not hold that particular office. He may be appointed to. some other. was one difficulty I had in framing this proposition, and about that I am not entirely satisfied, and that is as to the accounta bility of accounting officers in paying salaries to persons who have been ‘. by the senate. Perhaps they cannot always be formally or legally notified of the rejection. There may be a difficulty in that; but that was provided for by a bill which was pending at the time I drew this section, which required the rejections to be communicated to certain disbursing officers; and if this section should be adopted it will be necessary to have some such provision as was contained in the former bill at the time I drew this section.