Mr. HOWARD. Mr. President, there are somethings in regard to Offices which Iregard as certain and settled, and the 1st is, that no office can exist in the U.S. except under a law of the U.S. The 2nd is, that the POTUS has the power of nominatin candidates for Office to the Senate, but that ie has not the power of apointing them to office excc t by and with the advice and consent of the enatc, unless in cases of vacancy that may happen during the recess of the Senate. I am aware, and so are we all, that the pradtice has been very common heretofore during the existence of taGovernment for the POTUS to assume to fill vacancies by way of giving commissions where vacancies have occurred, not during the recess of the Senate, but during the session of the Senate; and it was on t mt particular point that the Senate saw fit toinstruct the ComJudiciary a few ears ago to give their opinion, and my friendfrom Illinois has read to the Senate the result of their consideration on that subject. ow, sir, I hold thatit is the plain intention of the Constitution that where the President has authority to grant commissions for the purpose of filling a vacancy, that vacancy rnnst have begun to exist, not during the session of the Senate, but after the close of the session of the Senate and during the recess of the Senate. I am nite aware that the Attorneys General of the tlJU.S., and I think perhaps without any difference of opinion among them as to the result at which they have or rived, have entertained the idea that a vacancy occurring during the session of the Senate may be filled by commission after the recess of the Senate has commenced. The ComJudiciary took thisquestion into consideration, and they held, an I think very properly held, that was a wrong and erroneous view of the Constitution. The Constitution declares that" The President shall have powertofill up all vacancies that may happen during the recessofthn Senate, by arrnnting commissionsw ioh shall expire at the on of their next session.” An eminent AttyGen of the U.S., Mr. Wirt, I think, took very cat liberties with this language when he hel that the word “happen” in its connection here may be so construed as to covera case of vacancy where the vacancy in the office had begun to exist during the session of the Senate. That was the construction which he put upon that language I think a very strained and untenable construction. The AttyGen, Mr. Le gare, in 1841, was called upon to give an opinion upon the some question, and he held, not. that the word “happen” may receive that broad construction, not that it may be made in that connection to hnply a continuation of an event, but that the President necessarily had this power to fill a vacancy that had occurred during the session of the Senate in virtue of his power to take care that the laws are executed 2 very different sources of power. I do not a ree with either of them. I think it is high time that the Senate of the U.S. should act upon this most grave and serious subject. I do not admit that the practical construction thus given by the executive branch of the Government, for a long time, indeed, is the true and accurate construction to be given, and in saying this I am not unaware, I trust of the great weight which such a long continue practical construction of the language of the constitution is entitled to. Certainly very great inconveniences may arise, and often do arise, from a departure from the practical construction of the law; but in such cases as this it seems to me that the langun c of the Constitution is too lain to he mista en. The report from which the Senfrom Illinois read contains some further observations on this question of convenience, and with the leave of the Senate I will read a few paragraphs: “We are aware that this construction has been. from time to time, sanctioned by AttyGens, and as recently as 1855. By Mr. Cushinc, and that the Executive has from time to timo. prnc ticedup on It. We are also aware of the great weight which such a continued practical construction is entitled to in considering the meaning and intent of a doubtful clausein a public not. But wp have not beenubleto convinceourselvesthat such is the character of the provision. We think the languagetoo plain to admit a doubt or to need interpretation: and wheresuch is the case, the language must not be“rested fromits DELHI?“ 50115ino avoid a Buupmed HICOHVGDIBHCQI and it is quite apparent, from all the arguments of the Attorneys General, that the real foundation of their conclusionsis the assumed inconyenience to the public penice of permitting an officeto remain vacant during the recess, where the vnoancy has happened during the sessionand remains unfilled at its O use. "Cases. it is true. May occur as they hnvo occurred. where a vacancymaysubsistafter the sessionin consequence of the refusal of the Senate to consent to or of its omission to act upon, a nomination: and exactly the same inconvenience mu result. as it has on numerous occasions resulted from the omission of the President to sendin a nomination. It is also an inconvenience that a vacancyshould continue for amy length of time. whether occurring during the sessionor therecess.andyet vacanciesmust, from the very nature of thcu.c. thus continue for a longer or shorter period. A Similar inconvenience must necessarily iavo happened if the Senatehad had no DUWCIw hateverOVOIiippmutments, and DOCUIfBrom necessit in the most absolute Governments. It is unavoi able. All this, howcver, was clearly foreseen by the framers of the Constitution when they used the languagegivinu the power; and it strikes us as far more rational to conclude that the yrceaided this tomporari inconvenience as outweighed by the advantage they had secured by requiriuir all appointments rteocoefise se. t, oerxecceepitvien tchaese ssaonlcvtaioenan of the Senate. The plan camensncar to perfection as the nature of the case and the preservation of any efioctive power on the part of the Senatewould admit.” Mr. President, I am for restraining, so for as is possible, the action of the executive branch of the Goverment to appointments to office within the strict limits of the Constitution. I think that during the last year or 2 we have had instances enough of an assumption on the part of the Executivgto appoint to offices which adnot even been create by law, and unless the Senate shall interpose effectually, and at a timely moment, to interrupt this current of events it is impossible to tell to what evils it may not lead. I shall, with a great deal of pleasure, vote for the amendment of the Senfrom Missouri, because I think there ought to be just exactly that restraint imposed upon the appointing