Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senfrom Maryland will allow me to so est that that is not the point which I made. do not. doubt that, as a question of power, the President may continue to send in the nomination of the same person after he has been rejected. As to the propriety of doing so, that is another thing; at as a mere question of power, as the Senfrom Maryland well says, e may select whom he pleases where he has the power to make the appointment. But the point which I made was that where a vacancy existed while the Senate was in session, it was not competent for the President to make an appointment after the Senate adjourned. The ghastitution authorizes the President to a point men to office by and with the advice an consent of the Senate, and a subsequent clause of the Constitution authorizes the President to commission officers to fill vacancies which may occur during the recess of the Senate, whose commissions shall expire at the end of the next session of the Senate. Now, it does seem to me very clear under this provision of the Constitution as an original question, that the vacancy must happen during the recess of the Senate to authorize the President to fill it at all. This is the exact provision: “The President shall have power to fill u all vacancies that may happenduring the recessot the Senate, by granting commissionswhich shall expire at the an of their nextsession." When can the President fill up a vacancy by granting a commission which shall expire at the end of the then next session of the Senate? Clearly when avaeancy happens duringa recess. Now, can it be said that a vacancy happens during a recess which existed when the Senate was in session? By way of illustration, there is a vacancy upon the supreme beach, which occurred, I think, since the last adjournment of the Senate. Suppose the POTUS had omitted to fill that vacancy, to send in a nomination to the Senate until the Senate closed its present session, would it be contended that the President after the Senate had adjourned could commission a man as a justice of the Supreme Court, to hold his commission until the end of the next session of the Senate afterward? Would that be a vacancy which happened during the recess? The intention of the framers of the Constitution was that all officers, saving some mine r appointments which might be made by the heads of Depts in pursuance of laws which should be massed, should be made by the nomination of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The framers of the Constitutionintended that all the Officers of this Government should;be appointed by the concurrent action of the President and Senate but the Senate not being always in session, and vacancies liable to occur at any time, it was necessary to provide some means by which the offices might be filled; hence this other clause was inserted to allow the President, when a vacancy happened in the recess of the Senate, to fill it by a temporary appointment or commission. It is not ealle an appointment at all, it. isalled the granting of a commission for a person to exercise the duties of thatOffice until the end of the next session of the Senate, so as to afford an opportunity for the President and the Senate together to fill the office in the propermode contemplated by the general provision of the Constitution. Now, I an pose in speaking of this amendment immediately betorb the Senate, it is entirely competent to provide that no person shall be paid who is commissioned to discharge the duties ofan office during the recess in case of a vacancy which has not. happened during the recess. I beg pardon for sayin so mpeh in interruption of the Senfrom filaryland. I really forgot that I was speaking on an interrution.