Mr. TRUMBULL. I trust this JtResolution is not to pass, and I confess myself somewhat surprised to see it coming here with the indorsement of a committee of this body. There is a law, plain and positive, providing that no person shall be paid any compensation for the discharge of the duties of an 0 cc without taking the oath prescribed bylaw. In open defiance of this plain statute, men have been appointed to responsible and important offices and now a bill is brought in to pay them, an a provision put upon it that t cy shall not be paid again. What do yourlaws nmountto? Why re'enact it over a ain? Next session, if these men continue, what good will your proviso do that has just been inserted, that they are not to be paid after a certain time? The law is now that they are not to be paid at all. Suppose the SecyTreasury contin ues them as officers to collect the public funds of the nation, will you not be bound next session to pay them? Probably the Senators who are supporting this measure will sa “no.” The SecyTreasury, in defiance of law, persisted in employing these men, and has been keeping them in office, I presume, ever since Congress met, and I suppose they or in office today, in the very teeth of a statute enacted for the very purpose of preventing men who were rebels to the country, who will not. swear to their loyalty, from holding the offices of the country. Now, sir, I am opposed utterly to pay ng these men one farthing for their services; am opposed to legislating to cover up any such violations of the law, and I shall ask for the yeas&nays upon orderingthis resolution to 0 read a 3rd time. I trust we may have a fuller Senate when the vote is taken, that the bill may go over. Perhaps the better motion is to postpone it an il tomorrow, until we can have a fu I Senate here, and let us vote delib erately whether we will pass such a bill as this; and when it is decided y the Senate that they will pass it, I propose, or I think the committee had better propose a repeal of thy law which requires the oath.