Mr. SHERMAIF. They are military agents and employees, but not officers. But waiving that question, 2 of the Depts of the Government have appointed subordinate officers who may be called “rebels.” The SecyTreasury has appointed certain of them subordinate agents to collect the reve nue, and the PostMGenl has a pointed a few probably as postmasters; but it has been wisely checked by Congress, and I believe the practice has now been abandoned. I think, therefore, there is no danger of such a contest as we now seem to anticipate by this amendment. If there is such a danger, we have the power to guard against it by a law. If this power shal be attempted to be exercised during the next summer after we adjourn; if the POTUS shall seek to use the public money and the public offices for the purpose of breaking down any delib erate sentiment of the people of the U.S., not only would the people of the U.S. he just and true enough to punish him, but we have it in our power next winter when we meet again to properly guard against such things in the future. Let us not anticipate this danger. Let us not guard against it until it occurs. Let us not in vite a controversy until it is upon us; and then we have ample and complete power over the whole subject. Let us not fear a foreign enemy, and arm our militia until he declares war against us and invades our country, and then we have the material within ourselves to repel the assault. I say congress need fear no controversy with the President. He may appoint here and there persons whom we do not approve: but we have the power over such appointments in the Senate, and therefore I am opposed to seeking a controversy of this kind until it is forced upon us. I have already said more than I intended on this subject. It is one of those unleasaut questions that it is difficult to argue. prefer to rest my opposition to this proposition solel upon the ground that it is unwise to attach sue a provision as this as a condition precedent to any appropriation bill.