Mr. FESSENDEN. I understand that this motion for reconsideration, which I believe is now the pending question; was made by my colleague on account of a desire I had expressed to be heard upon this subject before it was finally acted upon, I being out of the Senate engaged upon other matters at the time of its passage. I wish to state simply that so far as the bill stands now it is acceptable to me personally. I did not like any of the dates that were fixed there, because I reasoned precisely as a great many others did: the date might affect somebody perhaps in whom I am interested; and if a date was to be fixed at all, I wanted one to be safe with the rest of them; and therefore if that kind of legislation was to be adopted I thought I should like to share in its benefits. But, sir, I want to say further that I was opposed entirely to the adoption of the amendment made by the House. The amendment is for the single purpose of just changing the law and saying, substantially, that everybody who has been appointed by the SecyInterior since a given date shall go out of office unless he is reappointed. It was gotten up unquestionably, } argue from the face of it, for that purpose. It is very likely that the SecyInterior did, in certain cases in other States, as he did in the State of Maine, see fit to remove one pension agent and appoint another, and the object of the amendment as adopted by the House to the bill, it seemed to me, was to say that where he had done so those men should be considered still in office until a new nomination and appointment was made by the President under this law which we now propose to pass. As it stands now it is substantially that; because it leaves the power of appointment just precisely where it was before, since the amendment to the amendment has been adopted by the Senate, with the exception of those appointed since October, 1866, a date, which does not cover my man, and leaves him safe enough in office. That is so very late a date as not to touch him. So it is well enough in that particular. But, sir, I object entirely to this kind of legislation; that is my difficulty., I o: approved bill or submitted to the bill as it was 1st reported from the ComPensions. That committee said, “Here is an important class of officers, now very important; they disburse a great deal of money, and they are obliged to give heavy bonds; i. appointment now is by the SecyInterior, and he may appoint any number of them that he sees fit. It is proper that there should be legislation fixing l. number to be appointed, and giving the appointment to the }. of the U.S., and of course the nomi nees to be confirmed by the Senate of the U.S. in the ordinary way.” With reference to offices of that importance and; ". ". I think the proposed law is useful and proper. But, sir, I do not approve of beginning the kind of legislation which is proosed by the amendment of the House; that is to say, fixing up something that shall keep in certain persons against the appointments that have been recently made. To be sure I should not like to have one of my friends turned out. I did not like it in the case that was presented. I was sorry it was so. I should be willing to get him back by every method I could adopt that is consistent with my duty as a Senator; but to legislate that everybody who has been appointed to office since a given date shall be considered as out of office, and everybody who was in before that time shall be considered as in office, is carrying the idea of legislation on the subject of officers further than I am willing to go, further than my judgment approves. Therefore, I shall vote for the reconsideration with a view to see if the Senate will, on reflection, adopt the amendment of the House, or leave the matter just where everything is left of the same description.