Mr. POLAND. Mr. President, I desire to say a word more in reference to this matter of appointments. I do not regard it as of the very greatest consequence that the amendment which the committee have proposed to this section should be adopted, but it certainly seems to me that there would be more likelihood, more probability of our having the proper men appointed to fill these places if they are appointed by the district judge than in any other way. These officers are perhaps about as important in rank as deputy sheriffs, and it certainly seems to me to be very small business to be belittling the office of the Chief Justice of the U.S. to set him to appointing deputy sheriffs or officers of that rank all over the U.S. It has usually been permitted to the judges of every court to appoint their own officers. These registers are officers of the district court. They are even officers of the circuit court. Their duty is to aid in the administration of this jurisdiction that we are creating and conferring upon the district courts. do not know personally every district judge in the U.S., but I doubt very much whether there is one who will be governed in the selection of these men by any other motive than that of having the business properly conducted. I had supposed, when I was fortunate enough to get this bill before the Senate for consideration, that this talk and scramble about appointments and about offices would be laid.for one day at least, that we should not hear it in any discussion upon this bill; but it has come forward. Now, sir, in my own State we have a district judge, who was appointed while the Democratic party held power in this country. He was a Democrat, and a prominent Democrat; a man who stood at the head of the political organization of the Democratic party. He was chairman of the national committee of that party for some years, a promi nent and active politician. The State is per haps as strongly the other way politically as any State in the Union; but we have none so far as my State is concerned, in leaving the appointment of these registers in the hands of the district judge, where it seems naturally and properly to belong. If it was left to the judges of the circuit court instead of as the bill stands, the ab surdity would not be so oas it seems to me to be practically devolving the appointment of these officers upon the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, who can of course personally know very few of the men who will ask to be appointed in anyone of the States. He must act upon the representations of others. Although these officers are comparatively insignificant, it does not follow that there may not be a very great scramble for them. The contest for a place does not depend at all upon the importance of it., Although these places are comparatively humble in an official sense, there may be a very great number of persons who will aspire to hold them, and that the Chief Justice of the U.S. should be set to considering and weighing the claims of perhaps half a dozen men that he never heard of before, upon written recommendations and personal recommendations from lawyers and politicians, throughout each congressional district in the U.S., seems to me to be an absolute, perfect absurdity. So far as that feature of the House bill is concerned I certainly could never consent myself to its adoption. As to the other portions of it, whether the appointment is left to the district judge or given to the judges of the circuit court, is not a matter of so very much importance, because one of those judges at least would have personal knowledge in relation to that class of persons from whom these apointments are to be made in his own district. The circuit judge would be likely to have some knowledge upon the subject; in that portion of the circuit in which he himself resided he might know as well as the district judge of district; that but it seems to me that the amendment which has been proposed by the Committee is the true, just ground upon which these appointments ought to stand.