This resolution proposes simply to suspend the collection of this tax until the 1st of March next, which will enable the Legislature to hold its annual session, or until the accounts of the State with the General Government are adjusted, which will probably be done and the money paid in the course of two or three months. We are able to pay this tax, if we had any permission to do it. We do not ask the abatement which was allowed to other States who were allowed to pay it, and we are not included in the relief bill that has been proposed in the House of Representatives, which refers only to the rebel States. As this cannot be of any injury to the Government, and as a balance of money on any fair adjustment of accounts is actually due to the State of West Virginia, I trust this relief will be granted by the Senate.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I notice in reading over the resolution that it provides for a suspension of the collection of this tax until the 1st of March next, or until an adjustment shall be made with the State. That would put it in the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend it forever, or of the State, if they did not make an adjustment. I apprehend the Senator does not mean that it should have that construction. I suggest to him whether the phraseology should not be altered so as to provide that it shall be suspended until March, unless the accounts are sooner adjusted.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Very well. Mr. TRUMBULL. I suppose that was the intention.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I accept that amend

ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution has not been read at length to the Senate. It will now be read.

The Secretary read the joint resolution, which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend the further collection within the State of West Virginia of any part of the direct tax imposed by the act of August 5, 1861, until the 1st day of March next, or until the adjustment of the claims of the State against the United States.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move to amend the resolution by striking out the words "or until' and inserting unless the claims of the said State against the United States are sooner adjusted. A bill has already passed the Senate appointing a commissioner to adjust those claims.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia moves to amend the resolution in the seventh line by striking out the words "or until" and inserting "unless;' and in the eighth line by striking out the words "adjustment of the;" and at the end of the resolution by inserting the words "are sooner adjusted;" so that it will read:

That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to suspend the further collection within the State of West Virginia of any part of the direct tax imposed by the act of August 5, 1861, until the 1st day of March next, unless the claims of the said State against the United States are sooner adjusted.

The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. STEWART asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 322) to transfer the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of the Interior to the War Department; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE subsequently said: The Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] introduced a few moments since a bill to transfer the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of the Interior to the War Department; which was referred to the Committee on Mili

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir. Mr. STEWART. I do not see the necessity for that change. As the proposition is to transfer the Indian Bureau to the War Department I do not know why it might not go to the Committee on Military Affairs, and I think it quite important that it should go to that committee.

Mr. CLARK. It seems to me it certainly ought to go to the Committee on Indian Affairs, the committee who naturally consider such subjects, and not the Committee on Military Affairs. They know the condition of affairs in the Indian Bureau, and it is not supposed that the Military Committee do. It should go to the committee that is conversant with the matter proposed to be changed.

Mr. STEWART. I beg the Senator's pardon. I doubt whether anybody is familiar with Indian affairs. We hear constantly that it is the most mixed and discordant branch of the public service. Any one traveling through the Indian country will see that the whole system is a very defective one. The general knowledge of the system is defective; every one knows that it is defective; and certainly what little knowledge a party here may have of the details, will not be very important in considering the propriety of this change.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Extended debate on the question of reference is not in order.

Mr. STEWART. I hope the bill will be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin moves that this bill be referred to the Cominittee on Indian Affairs. Mr. NESMITH. Is the question debatable?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has usually allowed a limited debate on the question of reference, but extended debate is not in order. It is not in order to give extended reasons why it should be referred to one committee or the other.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Has the bill not been already sent to the Committee on Military Affairs?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not been referred to any committee.

Mr. NESMITH. I desire to state that the Committee on Indian Affairs had this whole subject under consideration, and a sub-committee, consisting of some members of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House and some of the Senate, gave their attention to the subject during the last summer, made very extensive investigations, and have collected a great many facts in a report bearing on the subject. It is a subject upon which the Committee on Military Affairs, as a committee, I apprehend, have no particular knowledge. I know that a great deal of information on this subject, which it is necessary to have in order to act understandingly upon it, has been collected by the Committee on Indian Affairs, and I believe every principle of propriety would send the bill to that committee.

Mr. STEWART. On that statement I withdraw my objection to its reference to the Indian Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, then, will be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. WILSON asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 323) to fix the military peace establishment of the United States; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. MORGAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 324) for the relief of John Hastings, late surveyor and depositary of public moneys at Pittsburg; which was read twice by it title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. CLARK subsequently said: The Sen

ator from New York, who is not now in his seat, [Mr. MORGAN,] introduced a bill for the relief of John Hastings, and an order was made referring it to the Committee on Commerce. The Committee on Claims has had that matter under consideration for quite a number of years, and last year there was a bill passed for his relief, and I wish the order referring this bill to the Committee on Commerce to be suspended until the Senator from New York comes in, when I will move to refer it to the Committee on Claims, where it ought to go.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That course will be taken if there be no objection. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. MORRILL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 325) to give certain powers to the levy court of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 93) for the appointment of a commission to examine and report upon certain claims of the State of Iowa; which was read twice by its title.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I move that the joint resolution be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and printed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I suggest that it should go to the Committee on Claims, and not to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. CLARK. What is the nature of it? Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is in relation to cer tain claims of the State of Iowa.

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I think it had better go to the Committee on Military Affairs. The claims grow out of military affairs.

Mr. JOHNSON. For moneys expended during the war?

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. For raising troops?
Mr. KIRKWOOD.
troops.

Yes, sir; for raising

The joint resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. W. K. MEHAFFEY, one of its Clerks, announced that the House of Representatives had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 477) further to provide for the safety of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, to regulate the salaries of steamboat inspectors, and for other purposes;

A bill (H. R. No. 591) for the relief of Thomas D. Burrall ;

A bill (H. R. No. 589) for the relief of Delia A. Jacobs, late Delia A. Fitzgerald;

A bill (H. R. No. 508) to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico; and

A bill (H. R. No. 590) for the relief of William Mann and Jacob Senneff.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had signed an enrolled bill (H. R. No. 280) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore.

Mr. NESMITH. This is a very brief resolution, which will not probably occupy two minutes. It merely proposes to refer a case to the Court of Claims.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appropriation bill is really before the Senate, and any objection will prevent the taking up of the joint resolution.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator can take it to-morrow just as well. up

Mr. NESMITH. I should be very much obliged to the Senator if he would allow me to take it up now.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If I did not have to oblige anybody else, I would do it with all my heart.

Mr. NESMITH. I presume there will be nobody else.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, I will not object.
Mr. SPRAGUE. Mr. President-

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot give way any further. I objected to my friend from Oregon taking up a resolution, but I said I would give way to him if I did not have to oblige anybody else. Now I see the whole business of the Senate is coming in.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection being made, the appropriation bill is before the Senate.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I have been trying all the morning to present a petition.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It can be presented just as well to-morrow as this morning.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I desire that it may go to the Committee on Commerce to-day, in order that it may be acted on to-morrow.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is exceedingly disagreeable to me to object in any case, but I have given way for thing after thing for half an hour after the regular time. I did say to the Senator from Oregon that I would give way to his resolution, but he has lost the floor. If, however, Senators will agree to stop there, I will give way so far as to allow the Senator's petition to be presented and my friend from Oregon to call up his resolution, which will give rise to no debate, as I understand.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I will agree to that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The petition will be received, if there be no objection.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. SPRAGUE presented a memorial of citizens of Rhode Island interested in the navi

gation of Narraganset bay, praying that the light now kept at Nayatt Point may be removed to the beacon at Cononicut Point, proposed to be constructed; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also presented a memorial of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Union of Washington, District of Columbia, praying for the passage of a law creating them a body politic and corporate; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Now my friend from Oregon can get up his resolution.

Mr. NESMITH. I will give way for fear of disturbing the equanimity of my friend from Maine. I prefer to let the matter go over and take the risk.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Iam very much obliged

to the Senator.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills from the House of Representatives were severally read twice by their titles, and referred as indicated below:

A bill (H. R. No. 477) further to provide for the safety of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, to regulate the salaries of steamboat inspectors, and for other purposes-to the Committee on Commerce.

A bill (H. R. No. 508) to amend the organic acts of the Territories of Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico-to the Committee on Territories.

A bill (H. R. No. 589) for the relief of Delia A. Jacobs, late Delia A. Fitzgerald-to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

A bill (H. R. No. 590) for the relief of William Mann and Jacob Senneff-to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

A bill (H. R. No. 591) for the relief of Thomas D. Burrall-to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 261) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1867, and for other purposes.

The first amendment reported by the Committee on Finance was in line fifty-two of section one, to insert "including loss by exchange thereon;" so as to make the clause fead:

For salaries of consuls general, consuls, commercial agents, and thirteen consular clerks, including loss by exchange thereon, namely.

Mr. FESSENDEN. With regard to that, I should like to ask my friend from Ohio, as I was not present in the committee when the bill was considered, why those words "including loss by exchange thereon" are to be inserted here when they occur on page 5, line ninety-eight, before the appropriation. I do not see why you want the words in both places.

Mr. SHERMAN. The last one ought to be stricken out.

other should be stricken out. Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well, one or the The amendment may be adopted and the words stricken out in line ninety-eight afterward.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I move to amend as we go along, to strike out the words "including loss by exchange thereon" in line ninetyeight of section one.

Mr. SHERMAN. That was the purpose of the committee, undoubtedly.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment reported by the Committee on Finance was in line sixty-two of section one to insert "Barcelona" after "Boulogne;" in line sixty-seven to insert "Hankow" after "Hong Kong; and in line seventytwo to insert "Nantes" after "Nice," among the consulates provided for in schedule B. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out the proviso in schedule C, section one, line ninetyeight, "Provided, that the compensation of the consuls at Malta, St. John, (Canada East,) Nice, Lisbon, Santa Cruz, and Tampico, is established at $1,500 each, annually, and the salary of the consul at Nassau (New Providence) is established at $3,000," before the gross appropriation of $420,000 for salaries of consuls general, consuls, commercial agents, and consular clerks, and to insert the following proviso after the appropriation:

Provided, That the compensation of the consuls at Malta, St. John, (Canada East.) Nice, Lisbon, Santa Cruz, Tampico, Prince Edward Island, Barcelona, and Nantes, is established at $1,500 each, annually, and the compensation of the consuls at Nassau, (New Providence, and Hankow is established at $3,000 each, annually.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I should like to ask the the compensation of the consul at Nassau was chairman of the Committee on Finance what prior to the war. I know that in the Committee on Commerce the compensation was proposed to be increased, and I should like to know what the compensation was before the war, as it is proposed now to make it $3,000. My impression is that it was then $1,500; and if it was $1,500 before, why is it necessary that it should be $3.000 now?

Mr. FESSENDEN I was not present when this bill was considered in the Finance Committee, and I cannot very well answer.

Mr. SHERMAN. This is really a reduction. The Secretary of State thought it ought to be $3,000. I think the present salary is $4,000.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is $2,000 in the list I have here.

Mr. SHERMAN. But it was raised during the war to $4,000.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then the increase ceased with the war; and it is $2,000 now, and this amendment increases it to $3,000.

Mr. SHERMAN. If so, it can be stricken

out.

Mr. SPRAGUE, I move that "Nassau, (New Providence,)" be stricken out of this amendment.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am told that it is a very expensive place, and probably $3,000 is not too large a salary.

Mr. GRIMES. It is not more expensive than other places where you pay only $1,500. Mr. FESSENDEN. It is a very important point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island insist on his amendment?

Mr. SPRAGUE. Yes, sir; I move that "Nassau, (New Providence,)" be stricken out of the amendment of the committee. I also move to insert "Nassau, (New Providence,)" after "Nantes," in line seventy-two of section one, in order that it may be established at $1,500; otherwise it may be continued at $4,000 as at present.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is $2,000 according to the recently published list. It was raised temporarily during the war, and is now $2,000. There are a great many cases where an increase was temporarily made during the war; but the recently published list of diplo matic and consular officers of the United States, dated March, 1866, states the salary at Nassau at $2,000.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Then I am willing to leave it at $2,000, and my amendment is simply to strike out of the amendment of the committee the words "Nassau, (New Providence.)"

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. POLAND. I propose to amend the amendment of the committee by inserting after the word "annually" where it first occurs the words that at Nice to commence December 14, 1865." The consulate at Nice had a salary of $1,500, the same as is provided by the amendment of the committee, which was to continue according to the terms of the law until the close of the war. That salary actually ceased on the 14th of December last. During this period a gentleman from my State, one who was many years associated with me upon the bench, has filled the place as consul. He was obliged, in consequence of the health of his family, to resign his place upon the bench and go abroad. The salary is very meager, $1,500 a year, not half enough to support himself and family. It is a very expensive place to live, and one where the consuls of other nations have very much larger salaries than we provide for our consul, and a place where the duties of the consul are constantly increasing, and largely increasing. Our European squadrons winter at Nice, or some portion of them, so that the duties of the place have been altogether larger than ever before. Judge Aldis, the consul, has been performing the duties during the whole of this time without any salary. The fees are very small, I think less than $100 during the last year. It is a place that is very largely resorted to by persons from this country and from all countries for health. Most of the foreigners there are persons who are invalids, and those from this country need the attention and sometimes the assistance of an agent of this Government. It is only bare justice that the salary should commence when the former salary ceased, on the 14th of De

cember.

these places, where we are satisfied that we must have consuls and that the fees will not pay them, to give them a salary of $1,500. That is right enough; but if we go back in one case to make up the deficiency between the period when the salary ceased and the beginning of the next fiscal year, I do not see why the same rule should not be applied to all the other places where we have paid a salary of $1,500 during the war. If we begin this system with regard to Nice there is the same propriety in going through with it in regard to all these other cousulates. As the policy has been as a general rule not to go backward and pay arrears of salary, the committee do not recommend anything of that kind. It is a matter for the Senate to decide whether it is worth while to make up to this gentleman who is consul at Nice what he would have received had the salary been $1,500, from December until the present time. It strikes me that the difference is not very great, and if it really costs no more to live there than the salary amounts to, this little addition will not give him much.

Mr. POLAND. It is very true, as the honorable Senator from Maine says, that the amount of half a year's salary of $1,500 is not a very large sum; but when the salary is not more than half enough to support the gentleman and his family at the place, it becomes a matter of some importance. I will say, in reference to the gentleman who holds this small consular position, that he is a gentleman who is amply qualified to represent us at any of the courts of Europe. He is in the place, and I know that when he went there, although as the law then stood the salary was only to last during the war, he was informed by Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, that the position of that place and the wants of the Government were such that undoubtedly the salary would be continued. He was told that although as the law then stood it was only a temporary position, the salary undoubtedly would be made permanent, and that he might rely on that when he received the appointment. In reference to many of the other cases which the Senator named, where the salary ceased at the same time, the consuls' fees are larger than the salary provided. One object of the Government in providing a salary instead of fees was, that the fees in some cases would be a much larger compensation than the salary of $1,500 which the bill provides, so that the Government really makes a saving by taking away the fees and reducing the officer to a salary of $1,500; but that reason does not apply to this case. I trust that the amendment will be adopted.

Mr. SUMNER. I know Mr. Aldis very well, and have known him for many years. I need add nothing to what the Senator from Vermont has said with regard to his eminent merits. He was one of the Senator's associates upon the bench of the supreme court of Vermont, and I have regarded it as a substantial benefit to our country that he was willing to accept this post. He conferred with me before he did accept it, and I most earnestly counseled him to accept it, if he could make up his mind under the circumstances to leave the country; for I desired to secure his services there. I shall, therefore, vote for this amendment; and I make this distinction between this case and the others, that in this case we actually have evidence with regard to the character of the incumbent and to the necessity of this increase. I have conferred with my friend, the Senator from Vermont; I know the evidence that he has, and I also have some evidence myself direct from Nice, all showing the necessity of this increase; and since I am informed of that necessity, and am familiar with the merits of the incumbent, and as the amendment is now moved, and I am to vote upon it, I shall vote in favor of it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. In addition to the objection which I before stated, there is another difficulty in the way, and that is that in the mean time, from the time the salary ceased up to the 1st of July next, this officer will have been receiving his fees; and this amendment gives him a proportion of $1,500 from last Decem

ber, so that he would be getting the salary for the same time that he was receiving the fees. Mr. POLAND. I will modify that.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not see any reason applicable to this case which is not applicable to every other one that we have. This officer may be, and unquestionably is, a gentleman of high character and standing; but a consul is a consul, and if we do this in one case there is no reason why we should not do it in others where the salary has not been received.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think there is a special reason which applies to this case that has not yet been wholly stated; and it may apply to some others, or it not. may Until some others

are suggested to which it does apply, I shall take it that it does not apply to any others. That reason is that Nice is the winter naval station for our Mediterranean fleet. They have been there most of the time, if I am correctly informed, this winter, or at least a considerable period of the time.

Mr. GRIMES. It is not the headquarters of the Mediterranean fleet; the headquarters is Lisbon.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I of course yield to the statement of the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs as to where the technical headquarters of the fleet is. I have not been there myself, and I cannot say; but if I am correctly informed by the newspapers, and from private information from Nice and from Florence, the Mediterranean fleet, or some considerable portion of it, has spent some time this winter at Nice; and I think the chairman of the Naval Committee will not dispute me on that. I have credible reason to believe that this gentleman who has been referred to, and who is a gentleman, has been obliged by those ordinary courtesies and duties belonging to consuls, where any American citizens or sailors are, to spend a sum of money which would equal the amount of this small salary for the short time during which it is proposed to allow it to him, in those necessary acts of hospitality and assistance which any man who represents his country in any position abroad feels bound to incur, and which, of course, ordinarily uses up a very large part of his salary. This gentleman, in this instance, if I am correctly informed, has done this, and therefore it appears to me that there is a special reason which applies to his case, and which may not apply to the others, for having the salary which he has really expended in the appropriate duties of his consulate, and in those hospitalities which, to be sure, the law does not oblige him to perform, but which a decent sense of respect for his countrymen requires him to perform, should, to this small degree, be made up.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected-ayes seven, noes not counted.

Mr. POLAND. One objection to the amendment I offered before was that it was not equal and exact justice to all. I now propose to amend the amendment of the committee by adding to it this proviso:

And provided, That in each of the consulates named in this schedule, where the salary has ceased, under the provisions of the act of August 2, 1861, the salary shall commence at the time the former salary ceased.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope that amendment will not be adopted. It is to make up arrearages to all these consuls.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The amendment of the Committee on Finance, as amended, was agreed to.

The next amendment of the committee was in line one hundred and thirteen of section one, to increase the appropriation "for interpreters to the consulates in China, and to the consular court at Bankok in Siam" from $6,800 to $8,300.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment of the Committee on Finance was to add as an additional section the following.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That all fees collected by any consul or commercial agent not mentioned in schedule B or C, or by any vice consul or com

mercial agent appointed to perform their duties, or by any other person in their behalf, shall be accounted for to the Secretary of the Treasury in the same mode and manner as is provided for in section eighteen of the act approved August 18, 1856, entitled "An act to regulate the diplomatic and consular system of the United States." And when the fees so collected by any consul or commercial agent amount to more than $2,000 in any one year the excess for that year shall be paid to the Secretary of the Treasury in the mode provided for by said act.

Mr. FESSENDEN. This amendment was reported on the strength of statements made to the committee by various gentlemen, that some of the consulships which are paid by fees alone afforded to the consuls very large salaries, it is estimated as high as $10,000 in some instances, and in one case even as much as $20,000. They have vice consuls and commercial agents at different places under them, covering a large extent of territory, and receive all the fees. The places paid by fees in this way embrace some of the best positions in Europe. It was stated on very good authority, and I have no doubt is the fact, that many of them actually receive very large pay from their fees, much larger than any of the consuls at regular salaried posts. The difficulty, however, about it is, that it is rather troublesome to get at it. Our consular system now is working admirably well. The fees being accounted for to the Treasury, and the consuls generally being paid by salaries, the system has now got to be almost self-supporting; it costs very little. The fees very nearly pay the salaries provided for; I do not know exactly how nearly. In those consulates, however, where the consuls are paid by fees entirely, they do not account for the fees, and they amount in some cases, as we are informed, to a very considerable summuch more than we pay to consuls who receive salaries. I find that after this amendment was drawn and reported, a communication was sent to the State Department requesting information with regard to it and the opinion of the Department in relation to it. In reply we received a communication from the Secretary of State, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.

The Secretary read the following communication: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, April 25, 1866. SIR: In reply to your letter of the 23d instant, I have the honor to state that the proposed section was doubtless drawn up with the commendable and very desirable object of preventing any consular officer from receiving an undue amount of compensation from his fees.

Nevertheless, I am of opinion that laws already existing furnish ample safeguards against the apprehended inconveniences, while they are not liable to some of the objections which seem to me to lie against the proposition now presented.

Those objections are:

1. The proposed section requires a certain class of consular officers to report their fees to the Secretary of the Treasury, instead of, as at present, to the Secretary of State, by whom they are submitted to Congress and to the President. As the Department of State is charged with the appointment, direction, supervision, and removal of these officers, it would soem to be essential to a proper discharge of its functions that they should report to it.

2. The proposed section appears to have been drawn up under the erroneous impression that all the fees received constitute a merely personal compensation to the consular agent receiving them. It is to be considered that out of these fees are also to be paid the office rent, clerk hire, and all other expenses incurred in the performance of the services for which the fees are exacted. It is also to be remembered that, section fifteen of the act of August 18, 1856, already provides that "every consular agent shall be entitled, as compensation for his services, to such fees as he may collect in pursuance of the provisions of this act, or so much thereof as shall be determined by the President; and the principal officer of the consulate or commercial agency within the limits of which such consular agent shall be appointed, shall be entitled to the residue, if any, in addition to any other compensation allowed him by this act for his services therein." Inasmuch as the duties and labors of every such consul are proportionately increased by every such agency over which he has supervision and for whose acts he is responsible, to abrogate this portion of the act, as this proposition seems to contemplate, would be to require the consul in such cases to assume additional labors and responsibilities, attended probably by increased expenses, for which he is to receive no compensation, or else to discourage the appointment of agencies which the growth of American trade in his dist. ict really demands.

3. Values and prices, as well as the duties, responsibilities, and expenditures of consular officers, vary so greatly in different parts of the world that a uniform limit of $2,000 would be, in different localities,

appropriation be made for the repairs of the cemetery. That is the substance of the report, but it can be read, if Senators desire to hear it. Mr. SUMNER. I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I suggest whether this item had better not be put on some other bill. Mr. CHANDLER. It is a consular recommendation, and the Committee on Commerce proposed to put it on this bill.

Mr. FESSENDEN. sular matter.

But it is not a con

Mr. CHANDLER. It may as well go on this bill as any other.

Mr. FESSENDEN. In that I differ from the Senator. It strikes me as singularly inappropriate to this bill. It may well go on the miscellaneous bill at the end of the session, where we insert various miscellaneous items. I think it ought not to go on this bill. I do not object to the appropriation, but I do not think this is the proper place for it. We never do put things of that sort in this bill. It has nothing to do with the consular and diplomatic service.

Mr. CHANDLER. It may just as well go on this bill as any other.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There is no propriety in putting on this bill something entirely inappropriate to it, when there are other bills to which it would be appropriate.

Mr. CHANDLER. I think it more appropriate to this bill than any other.

Mr. FESSENDEN. There are no consuls buried there.

Mr. CHANDLER. It is a matter brought to our notice by a recommendation of one of our consuls. I think it belongs quite as much to this bill as to any other.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not think it is to be put on the consular and diplomatic bill merely because a consul advised it, when there are other bills to which it would be appropriate. Mr. CHANDLER. The committee thought it better to put it on this bill, and therefore instructed me to report it here.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Probably it did not occur to the committee that this was not the proper place for it.

Mr. CHANDLER. What place would be more proper?

Mr. FESSENDEN. The miscellaneous appropriation bill at the end of the session; it would be very proper there.

Mr. SUMNER. I am sure that more than once similar appropriations have been put on this bill. I remember that at least once I moved such an appropriation to the civil and diplomatic bill to repair the cemetery at Constantinople.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is the money to be expended by the consul?

Mr. CHANDLER. Under his supervision. I think this is the place for it.

Mr. SUMNER. I think it may come in here. Mr. FESSENDEN. If it is a proper appropriation I suppose there will be no harm done by putting it here; but I should like to hear the evidence.

Mr. CHANDLER. Let the report be read. The Secretary read as follows;

The Committee on Commerce to whom was referred

the letter of Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, bearing date March 5, 1866, indorsing communications from Marcus Ottenberg, relative to the condition of the American cemetery at the city of Mexico, report:

That by the provisions of the act of Congress, approved September 28, 1850, $10,000 was appropriated for purchasing, walling, and ditching a piece of land near the city of Mexico for a cemetery or burial

ground for such of the officers and soldiers of our

Army as fell in battle or died in and around said city;

and for the interment of American citizens who had died or may die in said city. The money thus appropriated was expended by direction of the President of the United States for the object specified in the act. Seven hundred and fifty American officers and soldiers who died in and about the city of Mexico during the war, were interred in the ground thus acquired, and since the war a large number of American citizens have also been interred there. The American consul now represents that the cemetery is in a neglected and dilapidated condition, and estimates that it will require $1,500 to repair the cemetery, the sexton's house, and for other necessary repairs in and about the premises. The committee

recommend that $1,500 be appropriated for the purpose specified, to be expended under the direction of the President.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SUMNER. I am directed by the Committee on Foreign Relations to move an amendment to come in on page 2, line sixteen, after the word "dollars," in the shape of a proviso:

Provided, That an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary appointed at any place where the United States are now represented by a minister resident shall receive the compensation fixed by law and appropriated for a minister resident and no more.

I should like to make a brief explanation of this amendment. It will be perceived from its place that it comes after the appropriation for salaries of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary and ministers resident. The object in one word-that I will state precisely before proceeding into detail-is to authorize the Government to employ in its discretion persons with the title of envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary where it now employs ministers resident, but without any increase of salary. This subject has occupied the attention of the committee for several years; it has been more than once, I think, brought before the Senate. The committee in their recent consideration of it, I think, were unanimous that the good of the service, especially in Europe, required that this change should be made. From all the information that comes to us, it appears that our ministers at the courts where they have only the title of ministers resident play a second part to gentlemen with the title of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, though representing Governments which we certainly should not consider in point of rank in the world on an equality with ours. They are second to them; in short, to use a familiar illustration and simply in order to bring the difference home to the Senators, when they call upon business or appear anywhere they bear the same relation to the envoys extraordinary of those smaller Governments that, for instance, a member of the other House when he waits upon the President of the United States, as we know, bears to the Senators. The Senator is admitted to the President, when the member of the other House, as we know, waits. It is so now with the ministers resident of the United States as compared with persons of a higher title at the courts to which they are accredited, although those gentlemen with a higher title represent what I have already said we should regard as inferior Powers.

I hold in my hand, by way of illustration, the last Almanac of Gotha, for 1886, which is the diplomatic authority for the world, and has been now for about a century; and by way of example, I turn to the diplomatic list for the Netherlands, where it will be remembered we are represented by a patriotic citizen, well known to most of us, and who was connected with the press, Mr. Pike, with the title of minister resident. By looking at the list, I find at this same court that the Grand Duchy of Baden is represented by an envoy extraor dinary and minister plenipotentiary, that Belgium, the adjoining country, and with a population much inferior to our own, is represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; that Denmark, a nation which now, since she has been shorn of the two provinces of Schleswig and Holstein, has not a million and a half of population, is represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Spain, of course, is represented by an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Even the Grand Duchy of Hesse is so represented; so is the kingdom of Italy; so is the Duchy of Nassau; so is Portugal, so is Prussia, and so on. In transacting business the American minister resident at the court of the Hague is always treated as second to all these representatives. I have alluded to the relations which we bear to the head of the executive department here as compared with members of the other House. I doubt not that Senators know there is an advantage in that in the dispatch of business, in having access promptly and perhaps with a certain

consideration which does not always attach to those of the inferior rank.

That, in brief, is an outline of the present condition of things. I think there are none of the courts where our representatives do not complain that they suffer personally and in the public interests which they represent through this inferior position, and the object of the proposition now moved is to relieve this evil. It is to secure to these representatives the advantages which we covet for our country to the end that their own respectability may be enhanced and that they may transact the public business with the most effect.

It is not proposed-and now I come to the suggestion which the Senator from Iowa has made in a whisper-it is not proposed that there shall be any increase of salary.

Mr. CONNESS. That will come next year. Mr. SUMNER. I will come to that.

Mr. GRIMES. That is not the suggestion I made. The suggestion I made in a whisper, which the Senator seems to have heard, is that Mr. Pike, the gentleman to whom he alludes, in a letter to me ridiculed this whole proposition.

Mr. SUMNER. I think he must be the only one, then, that does it.

Mr. GRIMES. That may be. I have no correspondence with any but him.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to see the letter.

Mr. GRIMES. I think the Senator from Maine has seen it.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well. I will finish what little I have to say. I can only say, that from my experience in this matter, with some opportunities of observation and reflection, and with no personal interest in it whatever, with no desire to advance the interest of any human being, and at this moment having no one of our functionaries in view, simply speaking for the interests of my country, as I understand them, abroad, I am satisfied that they would be promoted by this change. And now comes the remark of the Senator from California that next year will be the demand for an increase of salary.

Mr. CONNESS. Perhaps it may be a year further on.

Mr. SUMNER. Perhaps the year after, or ten years from now. I do not know that it may not come; but I bring this forward in good faith. I do not bring it forward merely by myself; I bring it forward now as the representative of the Committee on Foreign Relations on this floor, after having carefully considered it, and believing, as I do, that the public interests will be promoted by it.

Now, a question may arise as to the form in which it is presented. I should like to have the Secretary read the proposition before I

comment on it.

The Secretary read the amendment.

Mr. SUMNER. It will be observed that the proposition does not undertake to empower the President, or to direct him, to make this change, but it assumes, according to a certain theory of the Constitution, that under the Constitution it is in the discretion of the President to send embassadors, envoys extraordinary, or ministers resident, or any other diplomatic functionary in his discretion, Congress having only the discretion of supplying the means. The Constitution says:

"He [the President] shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.'

It was in pursuance of this provision of the Constitution that in 1856, when our consular and diplomatic system was revised, the following provision was enacted; and here again you will observe that the provision does not undertake to empower the President to appoint embassadors, envoys extraordinary, or other diplomatic functionaries, but it assumes that he may do it, and proceeds to supply the salary. The provision is as follows: