Mr. President, I wish to say one word upon the pending question which I shouldnot have said had I not taken the floor to explain myself. Touching the constitutional question which is argued here as if it were involved in the pending amendment, I have to say, in the 1st place, that it does not seem to me that there is any such constitutional question involved; but itit be, then I hold that under the 1st clause of this portion of the Constitution which has been referred to, the Senate is made by the Constitution a censtituent portion of the appointing power. The language is, speaking of the President, that “He shall nominato and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall nppoing embassudors, other public ministers and consulaiudges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the U.S. whose appointmentsare not heroin otherwise fmV, ldod IOLNI which shall be established by cw. He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, all these officers. I cannot have a doubt but what the framers of this article, the men who employed this language, meant to say to the President not merely that he shall present a man to the Senate for an office, but that he shall nominate a man who shall be approved by the Senate, and with the approve of the Senate shall appoint the men to fill these offices. In my judgment, the President does not discharge the duty which this clause of the section devolves upon him when he has simply sent a name to the Senate. His duty is discharged only when he shall have obtained the consent of the Senate to the nominee whose name he shall have sent in., I know there have been industrious efforts made for veialmany years during our history to persuade e count that here was a prerog ative vested in the POTUS which made him really the appointing power, and which subjected every officer in the U.S. to his control. such may be the effect of the interpretation placed upon this clause of the Constitution by the AttyGen from whose opinion the Senfrom Maryland has read. am inclined to think that is the effect which would follow if that interpretation were correct. That it is not correct seems manifest from the plainest and most natural interpretation of the words employed. But inasmuch as a vacancy may happen when there is no Senate in being to give its assent, there is another provision incorporated into the Constitution, and that provision, I think, authorizes the President to commission and thereby to fill up a vacancy which happens during the recess of the Senate, which happens at a time when there is no Senate in being to give its assent to a nomination. What is the tenure of the commission granted by the President under these circumstances? The language of the Constitution is that it shall expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. If there had not been any usage to the contrary, which I believe there has been, I shouldhavesuppose dthatacommisision granted under these circumstances did confer an office upon the holder of the commission until the exsiration of the next session of the Senate, an that any appointment made during the next session of the Senate by a nomination of the President would take effect from and after the exiration of the session of the Senate. If there adnot been a usage to the contrary, I should have supposed that was the true interpretation of this clause, butl believe the usage is that this commission, which is granted to an officer in order to fill a vacancy happening during the recess of the Senate, is vacated the moment another individual or that same individual is nominated to the Senate and is confirmed by the Senate. But, Mr. President, whatever may be the true interpretation of these clauses ip the constitution, whether they ive to the President the right to dispense wiiii the authority of the Senate alto ether or not in making appointments, I to c it there can be no manner of doubt that they do not give the President unlimited control over the finances, the resources, the revenues of the country. It is, it seems to me, optional with the Legislature how much they will pay the public servants. those of them whose compensation is not fixed by the Con. stitution, and when they will pay it, and what ones they will pay: and therefore it is that 1 said at the outset that I did not think there was any constitutional question really involved in the amendment offered by the Senfrom Missouri. I take it there is no question but what the Legislature may constitutionally re fuse to pay any pestmaster or any other officer. Of course they act at their peril. If they act on reasons which are not satisfactory to the country, they will suffer for it as they should; but they are the judges of the question what officers are to be paid, what offices are to exist independently of the offices named in the constitution itself, how much each one of those officers should receive and when they are to receive it. It isiin the exercise of this authority that we are called upon to adopt this amendment. It is by virtue of this authority that I take it we can clearly adopt this amendment without violating the Constitution. The question will still remain whether the fact that an officer has been nominated and has been rejected by the Senate, the coordinate branch of the appointing power, is of itself a sudicient reason for refusing to pay such an individual. For myself, holding that it is a sufficient reason, I shall vote for the amendment. I do not think the Legislature has a right to appropriate a dollar of the public funds for the payment of an officer who the Senate has said is unfit to hold office.