Mr. HOWE., I am told by my friendfrom Vermont, and he is very likely to be correct, that they are by law to be appointed by the SecyTreasury upon the nomination of the collector. Well, then, practically, they are appointed by the collector. There is no sort of sense in requiring this approval by the SecyTreasury. It amounts to nothing; it is a mere form; but there are only 2 or 300 of them any way in the city of NewYork, and that is probably 3 or 4 or 5 times the number there are in all the rest of the country. I do not think the Senate would be swamped if it had to confirm that number of inspectors. The number of weighers and of gaugers is much fewer. It is said there are a great many inspectors of whisky. There is but." one inspector to a distillery. There are but about 30 million o in the U.S. I do not suppose they average more than one distillery to a man of them; you cannot have more than about 30 million of these inspectors. [Laughter] So it is undoubtedly true, as the Senfrom Massachusetts said yesterday, that they can be counted, and I should not be at all surprised if upon the actual count it fell somewhat short of a distillery to a man. The number of distilleries in point of fact is limited, and I trust I shall live to see the day when you will not think it wise or sensible to put a confede rate of a distiller to watch a distillery. I trust I shall live to see the day when that corps of officers will bejfrom the public service.. if I do not live to see that day, I trust I shall live to see another day when some one or 2 men or 3 are appointed to watch the inspector. One or the other of those measures, I am satisfied, is going to be absolutely essential. But, Mr. President, there is no reason why an inspector, there is no reason why an asst assessor should be appointed by the SecyTreasury. Until within a year the SecyTreasury did not appoint asst assessors. A special act was passed I believe during the last session of Congress, and very early in the session, giving the appointment of asst assessors to the SecyTreasury. Up to that time they had been selected in fact and in law by the assessors themselves. I thought at the time, and I think now, with all deference to the action of Congress on that subject, they should still be selected by the assessors. I think practically they are selected by the assessors. here is no purpose in the world, unless I am grievously mistaken, in giving the SecyTreasury anything to do with the ratifica.tion of those selections but the mere purpose of making them political machines, making them responsible to some man in the Govern.ment who is directly responsible to the POTUS That is the only purpose it subserves. The assessor really selects them, nominates them, dictates them to the SecyTreasury. I hope to see the selection of those officers once more restored to the assessors, as it was before. When that is done you will have but a few 100 officers provided for by this amendment. When that is done there will be but one officer in the State of Wisconsin that would come. within the provisions of this amendment offered by the Senfrom massachusetts. There will be but a very few in the U.S. unless I am mistaken. But if I am mistaken, and if the Senfrom Maine and the Senfrom NewHampshire are right in saying there are millions, I reply that the more there are of them the more the necessity for this provision. It is the very purpose, the life, the whole spirit of the bill to take this power and this patronage away from the Executive and put it nearer to the people themselves and to those who represent the people; and the more there is of this patronage the greater the necessity for taking it away from the President. And, sir, is it worth while to tell us that we cannot pass upon these nominations, be they more or less, in view of the large, the almost countless1,000s I guess I am exaggerating now in intimating that the 1000s are countless but the very many, 1000s of military officers that we have been passing upon every year during this late struggle? I think we are not to be deterred, having gone through with that labor, from attempting to pass upon even all the whisky inspectors and all the asst assessorsthat may ever come to us. But, Mr. President, if it were our business here in legislation to protect ourselves from labor, if that is the object and the purpose to animate us, we can save ourselves from a great deal more: just leave the work of makinglaws in the hands of the President, let him continue to make the laws as well as to appoint all the officers, and we should have a very easytime of it. Then we could devote ourselves exclusively to the work of drawing our salaries an spending them. I do not learn that the President is overburdened; I dare say he conattend to the work of making laws as well as appointing the officers; but I do not think." were sent here for the purpose of those labors or any labors that properly attoo to us. Nay, I think it is our business to seek labor and to perform it, whatever labor the service and the welfare of the country requires at our hands. But the Senfrom Maine urged yo day that the President could not know." about these officers, he could not unders” their character. Well, sir, I suppose ho does not know much about most of them; I chai" bly hope he knows a very little. If he under. stood as much about them as I I do, thinko would want somebody to help him different from what he has had to help him for or 2 past in the selection. But I mus. quire very earnestly what there is in the constitution of the SecyTreasury." the head of any Dept which enables to know more about these officers than "" President does. The head of a Dept is but a single man. The President is tha" s