Mr. SHERMAN. if I understand the purpose of the bill, it is simply to carry out the idea expressed by the Senfrom Maryland. As these pension agents have now become very important, as they disburse something like 25 million instead of one or 2 million a year, it is proper that their nomination should be communicated to the Senate and passed upon by the Senate. They are no longer “inferior officers” in the sense of the Constitution, but they are important officers, their disbursements being equal to the entire expenses of the Government 30 years ago. The main object of the bill, therefore, is clearly right to require the nominations of these officers to be sent here. But the object of the Senfrom Indiana is to have the existing officers legislated out of office at the expiration of 30 days, so that their names or those of their successors may be sent to the Senate for confirmation. I think that is perfectly proper. While the Senfrom Maryland was speak ‘ing, I made a remark to him to which he alluded. It was, that if the President would still insist upon appointing men whom the Senate had rejected, I would make the contest with him on that point. Sir, I say that if the POTUS seeks to overthrow the authority of the Senate, clearly conferred upon it by the Constitution of the U.S., I would make the point upon him. I introduced in the early part of this session a bill, which was referred to the ComJudiciary, and which I hope will be acted on, to make it a criminal offense to seek thus to violate the Constitution of the U.S and to override the judgment of the Senate. The Senate have the same constitutional power to pass upon nominations that the President has to make them. If the President can ignore and repudiate the deliberate judgment of the senate, it is better to change the Constitution at once and give him the sole appointing power. If he seeks a contest or a point of that kind I am perfectly willing to accept it. hen the President makes a nomination to the Senate he has exhausted his power; and when the Senate reject that nomination there is an end to that appointment; and he cannot, after the close of the session, renominate that person to the same office without violating the spirit of the Constitution and in a measure violating his oath of office. And, in considering a question of this kind in the case of a conflict between the Senate of the U.S and the POTUS, I will not regard the opinion of the AttyGen or any other officer. We are to pass upon it our selves, as we have the constitutional right to do. That is all I desire to say.