Before I proceed with the merits of this question, so far as such language can be used with reference to it, and as I see the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] in his seat, I wish to answer an argument of his yesterday. He said that the resolution was simply one of inquiry, and that therefore there could be no objection to it. I was astonished when I heard one of his experience in this Chamber and his familiarity with legislation characterize the pending proposition simply as a resolution of inquiry. The Senator is mistaken. It is a joint resolution creating three offices under the Constitution of the United States, offices contemplated in the Constitution itself, and specially mentioned by name in the Act of 1856 to regulate the diplomatic and consular systems of the United States.[259] I read the first section of that Act, as follows:-- “That ambassadors, envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, _commissioners_, chargés d’affaires, and secretaries of legation, appointed to the countries hereinafter named in Schedule A, shall be entitled to compensation for their services, respectively, at the rates per annum hereinafter specified: that is to say, ambassadors and envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, the full amounts specified therefor in said Schedule A; ministers resident and _commissioners_, seventy-five per centum.” Now, Sir, by this joint resolution the President is authorized to appoint three “commissioners,” and also a “secretary,” the latter to be versed in the English and Spanish languages, to proceed to the island of San Domingo, and to inquire into, ascertain, and report certain things. I say this is a legislative act creating three new offices; but the Senator says that it is simply a resolution of inquiry. Even suppose the offices are not diplomatic, they are none the less offices. Let me put a question to the Senator. Suppose a joint resolution were brought forward authorizing the appointment of three commissioners to proceed to England in order to ascertain the condition of United States securities and the possibility of finding a market there; according to his assumption it would be a resolution of inquiry only. Would he allow it to pass without reference to the Committee on Finance? Would he not insist that it was a legislative act opening a most important question, which should be considered by the appropriate committee?