Mr. BINGHAM. I rise to oppose the section. There is nothing clearer to my mind than that the last clause of this section is in direct conflict with the express letter of the Constitution. No attempt of this sort has ever before been made in an American congress. The provision of the Constitution is as plain as it is possible for man to write it, that all appointments that are to be made with the concurrence or consent of the Senate must be made by the President. Therefore I cannot well see how the mover of this bill can persist in having an argument running on here upon a section of the bill which contains a clause of this sort in direct contravention of the in strument under which we are assembled and by the authority of which alone we legislate. That clause of the bill is as follows: in“aTteh, e heads of Depts shall severally nom and by and with the advice and consent of the Senateappoint, all their asstsand other officers within their respective Depts.”. Now, how can this become law while the Constitution contains the following provision: “He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice of the Senate, to make treaties, provided 2/3rds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice of the Senate shall appoint, embassadorsand other public Iainisters and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the U.S. whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.” What appointments are herein that is, in the Constitution otherwise provided for than by the President with the consent of the senate? It is provided therein that Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Depts. Congress cannot by these terms vest by law these appointments in the President and courts, for it must be in him alone; and to say they can by law vest them in the courts with the Senate is simply to disregard plain words, and would justify an enactment that the courts and town constables jointly might make such appointments. If there is any provision of the Constitution which in any manner authorizes this kind of color legislation I would like to know what it is. The proposition is that “The heads of the several Depts of the govyeernamrse, nt shall hold their offices respectively for 4 unless removed by the President by ahd with the advice and consent of the Senate: and shall severally nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint, all their assts and other officers within their respective Depart Inents.” The point I make is that there is no officer known to the Constitution who is authorized to appoint to office with the consent of the Senate but the POTUS