Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, I wish I could see this matter as clearly, and perceive the path of duty as easily as my friendfrom Massachusetts and my friendfrom Illinois. I should like very much to promote the manifest object of the amendment, to prevent removals during the recess for political reasons. The Constitution provides for 2 classes of appointments: one made during the session of the Senate, which are of no validity until they are sent to the Senate and confirmed. They are the classes of nppointments referred to by the law of 1863, a law that I remember very well and which grew out of abuse by the executive of the constitutional power to appoint to Office. Where a vacancy occurs during the session of the Senate, the appointment of the President is of no validity and has no force until it is sent to the Senate and is confirmed. No accounting officer of the Treasury would pay the salary from the time of the appointment until the continuation, because the appointment only takes elfect from the confirmation. The not of 1813:}was simply declaratory of the Constitution in that.respect. I presume it did not change in the slightest degree either the practice of the accounting officers or the practice of the Government itself. But this amendment goes be and that; it in effect declares that the President of the U.S shall not remove anybody from Office during the vacation, except upon the penalty that the successor shall get no pay unless at the pleasure of the Senate; that the Officer who may be apointed by the President in case of a removal during the recess of the Senate, shall perform the duties of his office without pay until the Senate confirms him, and in case the Senate refuses to confirm him that he shall thse hanre the duties of his office without pay at all. The Constitution provides that “ the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” Now, let me take a case, which I submit to the chairman of the ComJudiciary: suppose that after the adjournment an Officer of the Government should become a defaulter, and should he removed for defaleation, or for crime and some one else should be appointed in his place. That person thus appointe would be a legal officer of the Government, just as much so as the Senfrom Illinois; just as much so as I am, just as much so as any Officer of the Government can be. Does he propose to say that this Officer shall not receive any pay whatever until the Senate has confirmed the appointment? Suppose the confirmation is refused by the Senate: does the Senator mean to say that officer shall receive no pay, although thus confessedly legally appointed, unless ta Senate confirm him? The Constitution de clares that this appointment made during the vacation is alegal, valid appointment which shall last until the close 0tp the following session of the Senate. The officer is just as much an officer when he takes the oath of olIiee under that appointment as he would be after the confirmation of the Senate in case he had been appointed during the session of the Senate. Do we say that we will not pay an officer for his services during the time he confesse dly holds his Office legally. That is the effect of the amendment.