Mr. JOHNSON. That is the language of the Constitution. That being the case, those postmasters who were a pointed during the recess hold commissions that run to the termi nation of the present session of the Senate. That is clear. If they do, then the vacancy that occurs is a vacancy occurring during recess, because as long as there is a man in office under a commission the office is filled, and there is no vacancy. The vacancy, therefore, begins to exist only at the termination of the next succeeding session of the Senate. Now, I can see and I saw it when I was a member of the executive that this may be used so as practically to do away with what was the General practice of the Constitution; but the framers of the Constitution. in words, authorized the President to appoint and to commission parties who were to hold their offices to the very last moment of the session. The object of that was to insure the offices being filled. It seemed, no doubt, it went upon the hypothesis that the President would nominate during the session of the Senate, and in all probability if his nomination of the particular Officer was rejected, that he would nominate somebody else, but that until be nominated somebody else, and that other party was confirmed by the Senate, his 1st appointment remained; or otherwise the office would go unfilled. I admit with the honorable member from Illinois that I think the President would war as against the spirit of the Constitution, or, rather, would be guilty of an abuse of power, if he designedly kept in office a man whom the Senate had thought proper to reject for reasons which he had no ground to believe would afterward cease to influence the Senate; but it very often happens, or may happen to the Senate it has happened that they reject today, and find that they have made a mistake, and are willing to confirm to rnorrow. The President, therefore, may have reason to believe that an a pointee of his, rejected by the Senate, would still, if renominated, not be objectionableto the body; but whether so or not, whether it be an abuse of power or not, is not the question which this amendment suggests. The question is, has he the power? and if he has the power, and he has exercised the power by lppointimr a particular man to office, that man is entitled to his pay under the Constitution. We have no right to interfere with the power of the President indirectly. We cannot say that he shall not a oint. If that would be nug atory. it is equalllw improper, I submit to the Senate, to attempt to accomplish the same object indirectly, by providing that although he a points the appointee shall not be paid. If e Constitution gives to the a pointee a right to hold his commission, then the honor of the U.S. is involved; he ought to be aid; and yet this amendment says that he sha l not be paid.