Mr. HOWE. Very well. You find it on the books, but not in the practice of the Senate. That is the difficulty. Now, then, if there is any reason why this Government should pay this individual $6,000 or any other sum, and he asks the Government to do it, I do not see why it is not in the province of the Senate or of the House, whichever body the claim is presented to, just as well to refer that claim to the ComForRel, the ComCommerce, or any other committee as to the ComClaims, if they prefer to trust one of their other committees. It is the usage, undoubtedly, to refer these claims Generally to the ComClaims. We have a committee for that ox ress business; butI do not understand that t ore is any law which obliges you to make that reference. It seems the Senate did refer this claim to the ComForRel. Now, if I could see any good reason for paying the claim, I do not see any substantial reason for not putting it into this appropriation bill; but I must differ with those Senators who say this does appear to be a meritorious and just claim. I agree with the Senfrom In iana that it is not a very important matter whether we ay $6,000 or not to Mr. Clarke but I do thin it is a very serious matter whether we should sanction the usage, if any such usage exists, of allowing the Government to employ in their service diplomatic agents and officers without the consent of the Senate, without the authority of law, and recognize our obligation to pay for their services. I supposed there was a substantial reason for requiring that Officers employed in the discharge of these duties should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but if it be so, that when one minister has been appointed and confirmed by the Senate, he can leaVe his post or resign his post, and that the President or the SecyState may go on at his pleasure and transfer the duties to some other individual, and the Government still be bound to pay him for those services in this case it is only to pay one, as I understand.