Mr. HENDRICKS. I am indifferent what day shall be fixed; but now that the F. of this amendment has been so explicitly stated by my colleague, I suppose every Senator understands exactly what he is voting upon. It is the naked proposition of legislating men out of offices offices to which tho, have been appointed according to law. Where party friends were to be provided for there have been instances where officers have been legislated out of existence, and then the office legislated into existence again with a view to provide for dependent partisans; but I think this is about the 1st time the Congress of the U.S. has undertaken, in direct terms, to legislate a class of men out of office that other men of more satisfactory views might be appointed to their offices. In other words, it is simply a question of “bread and butter.” The ministration has been charged with iving some little attention to that question. t cannot now be disguised, after the very explicit statement of my colleague, that Congress proposes to give attention to the question of “bread and butter.” I am not going into any vindication of the President on the question of removals and appointments. If he intended to maintain the force of his Administration in the State which I represent, along with my able colleague, by lacing the offices in the hands of his friends, }. has made but a very limited effort in that direction. Compared with the entire number of office holders in the State, those who have been appointed by him to maintain his policy are very few indeed, so far at least as I. Of the pension agents in the State of Indiana I know of but one change; so that I do not know of any abuse of power by the President, if the President is to have the appointing power at all, that we are called upon to correct. I am not sure that the number of agents ought to be limited, as this bill proposes. I understand that the agents are compensated by a commission, and that it makes but a very trifling difference to the Treasury whether there are 3 or 6 agents in a State; but it may make a very great difference so far as the convenience of the pensioners is concerned. I can look over the State that I represent and can see, in my judgment, that there ought to be more than 3 agencies there. I think my colleague will agree with me in that. The northeastern portion of the State should have an agency at fort Wayne. There is one there now I know very well. The central portion of the State should have an agency at the capital. The southern portion of the State one at NewAlbany. The southwestern portion of the State one at Evansville. The northern portion of the State one at Laporte or some other convenient point. These are matters of convenience to the pensioners. But my colleague has the main responsibility of this question, he being the chairman of the ComPensions, I would not, with my judgment of what will tend to the convenience of the pensioners themselves, vote to restrict the number of agencies in the State of Indiana to 3. I think it will prove a matter of great inconvenience to the pensioners, and, necessarily throw them into the hands of private agents to whom they will have to pay money to transact their business. If the public agencies are at remote points they must transact their business through private agents or else be at the expense of traveling a distance. That is not well; it is not necessary. It is not necessary when there is no economy to the Treasury by decreasing the number of these agencies. It is not necessary to increase the inconvenience to the pensioners when there is no saving to the Treasury. The general proposition now, because the amount of money paid out by these agents has increased to so great an extent, of subjecting them to the confirmation of the Senate I agreed to at the last session when my colleague brought the ques.tion up. I have no objection to that. I think it is propor enough: