Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, according to law. The Senator was probably not aware of the fact. When the revenue law was 1st passed all these subordinates were left to be appointed by the assessor or collector of the district; but it was thought that it would be better to have the whole of them sent to the head of a Dept. Under the Constitution we could not invest the head of a bureau with the power to appoint asst collectors and asst assess ors. It would have been a better practice to leave all these mine r appointments to the head of the internalrevenue Bureau; but as by the Constitution the appointing power must be invested in the POTUS, or in the heads of Depts, or in the courts of law, it was found necessary either to leave these subordinate officers to be named by the collector and assessor without any reference to the Depts here at Washington, or to in west their appointment in the SecyTreasury, who was the head of the Dept. So the law of 1864, under which all these o were made, expressly requires them to be appointed by the SecyTreasury.;the common habit, the assessor designates his own asst assessors, and they are sent to the SecyTreasury to be approved by him, and usually it is a mere matter of form. I see no object in having our files cumbered with the names of all these small, subordinate officers who hold their office at the pleasure, substantially, of an officer who is submitted to us. If the amendment were confined to officers of sufficient importance to be aimed at as holding political positions, or whose offices are sought for political purposes, then I think it ought to be adopted. There are a number of postoffice agents who ought to be sent here for confirmation; there are a large number of revenue agents who ought to be sent here; and quite a number in other Depts who are not now sent here ought to be; but that can be accomplished very easily by a change of the law regulating their appointment. If the Senator desires the postoffice agents to be sent here, he can very readily move an amendment covering them on the E' office appropriation bill or any proper il that is pending in the Senate; but it seems to me it would be a public inconvenience amd a matter of no practical utility to require the multitude of mine r officers I have named to be sent to the Senate. By overwhelming our table with a multitude of appointments it would probably only make us disregard those more important ones that ought to demand our attention.