Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope that amendment will not be adopted, for the reason that it interferes with and is contradictory to the theory of the main body of the amended bill. If that theory is right, this amendment I think ought not to go in. The bill proceeds upon the ground that every officer who is rightfully and regularly appointed, and who has not been suspended for some good cause, shall continue to exercise the functions of that office until he shall be removed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and his successor appointed, and until his term having expired his successor shall have been agreed upon. Now, then, if the amendment of my friendfrom Wisconsin is agreed to, the effect of it will be simply this: that in the case of an officer whose term expires, and his successor does not happen to be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, the office becomes vacant; the holder of the office goes out with the expiration of the term, and then some subordinate who happens to be prosent, and upon whom in the case of a vacancy the law would devolve the duty of performing the duty until the office was. will exercise the functions of it. It appeared to the committee, and I think it will commend itself to the sense of the Senate, that in a case of that description where there is no charge against the officer and where the only reason why he is to continue at all is the fact that his successor is not yet agreed upon, it would be better to allow the old officer to continue to exercise the functions of the office until his successor shall be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, instead of declaring that the office shall be vacant at the expiration of the term. And that is the law in a great many, I was about to sny all the States respecting State appointments, municipal officers althoseper. sons who discharge the functions of executing the laws of the various States. They are gen, erally appointed for a particular period of time and until their successors shall be duly chosen or appointed and qualified, it being thought more fit that a person against whom no charge is brought and whose term has expired should continue to exercise the functions of the office adinterim until his successor is chosen than that the office should be vacant. I shouldhope, therefore, that the Senate would not declare that at the expiration of the term of an officer who is appointed for 4 years, and while the question of who is to be his successor is being considered, the office should be vacant and be performed by some subordinate. I fail to see the necessity or the propriety of it. I hopethat amendment may not be agreed to.