suffer if we refuse to make the appropriation. The reason why we make it this year-I suppose it is to be made-is because it was made last year; for you have seen by the registry I have given you here that when you once find a pretext for putting an appropriation on the statute-book, it is idle to look for pretext to take it off. That cannot be done.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It strikes me that the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin is very singular. He says he believes these men can take care of themselves as well as any other men, because they have done it. How have they done it? They have done it because Congress by its legislation compelled them to do it; that is to say, took the means to do it out of their own money, did not suffer their money to go into their own hands entirely, but took possession of and retained a portion of it for their benefit, going upon the idea which all nations have recognized with regard to this class of men, that they are perfectly incapable of taking care of themselves, because from the nature of their pursuit they are so improvident and careless. Everybody knows that as a general rule a sailor spends all he has made in three days after he gets ashore, and gets in debt to the keeper of the lodging-house where he stays, and is obliged to ship again, no matter how much money he may have had when he landed. All commercial nations have found it absolutely necessary to make provision for taking care of this class of men. Has Congress legislated to take care of those who get sick and disabled in agricultural pursuits? No. Why? Because they can take care of themselves. Their habits of life are different. They are naturally thrifty; they are among friends; they have people who are interested in them. They are a different class of men altogether. They live in communities steadily; they have homes; they are surrounded by all the good influences of the communities in which they live. But what is a sailor? He has no home except on board his vessel; he knocks about all over the world at foreign ports, and from his habits of life is necessarily incapable of taking care of himself. We provide for sick and disabled soldiers. We give them pensions and we furnish hospitals for them. nish hospitals for the sick and disabled seamen of the Navy. We take the money from the sailor in the commercial marine, and this is simply an appropriation to supply the deficiency of that fund by providing for the sick and disabled seamen.

We fur

Mr. FESSENDEN. I understood the Senator to make it. If that be not the fact, then it turns out that this fund was insufficient for the support of the sailors, and hence an appropriation was made from the Treasury for building those hospitals. Then the Senator's argument fails at each end. If an appropriation was found necessary, it was because enough was not taken from the wages of the sailors to answer the purpose of providing for sick and disabled seamen, That may have arisen from several causes. I suggested that it might come from the fact that commerce was not so prosperous in one year as in another. It might also arise from the fact that a great deal more money was expended on account of a greater degree of sickness in one year than another. Or it may be perhaps that the hospital system is more expensive. Undoubtedly it is where you have a case like that at Galena; and where you have such a case it would undoubtedly be better to provide by the contract system for having the sailors taken care of; but the objection found to the contract system has been this: where you have a contract and the sailors are taken care of at so much a week, it is likely that but very few people can be found who will take care of sailors, and those who do are likely to be a class of people who want to make as much money out of them as they can; and the result is that the sailor is neglected or abused and does not get that which is sufficient for him in the way of food or medicine or care. For that reason in large places where there are likely to be many sick sailors hospitals are built to take care of them. They may in some places cost more than they ought, and the fund may have been reduced in that way.

That is a natural consequence, perhaps, but that is nothing against the system, if the system is founded upon general principles applicable to commerce. If the Senator can find any way to compel merchants who own vessels to take care of sick and disabled seamen after they are discharged, that will be one thing; but there would be no more justice in doing that than there would be in passing a law to compel every farmer to take care of a sick or disabled servant or laborer in his employ; and you do not do that. These men, as I said before, the moment they finish a voyage are discharged; they are thrown on the world; and if they are sick or disabled there is nobody to take care of them. If they are able seamen, they ship again. This provision is a matter that arises from the necessity of the case and from the The Senator argues that this fund has been nature of the business. It is not to support wasted, and he points to the hospitals that commerce, but it is a matter that arises from have been built, and to the fact that the fund commerce, and commerce itself is a necessity was reduced by building half a dozen hospitals to every great people and needs encourageup and down the Mississippi river. Who did ment, and every great people does encourage it that? Did the sailors do it? No. Did they in every proper way, not by appropriating ask for it? No. Individuals presenting dis- money, but by passing laws such as are best tricts asked for it, and Congress did it. Who calculated to effect the purpose. I really hope robbed the fund? Who reduced it? Who that we shall not set the example to the civilbrought about the necessity for making this ized people of the world of being the only appropriation to take care of sick and disabled commercial nation on the face of the earth seamen, because the fund furnished by their that will do nothing for the support of sick and wages is not large enough? Congress by inter-disabled seamen who so much need it. fering with the fund and devoting it to these purposes.

Mr. HOWE. Let me inform the Senator that Congress never took any of this fund except $50,000 to constitute a naval fund.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Was nothing taken out for the purpose of building marine hospitals? Did not the Senator just now argue that the fund was reduced for that very reason?

Mr. HOWE. In the first half century $15,000 was taken to build a hospital at Chel

sea.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Did not the Senator in his last remarks point to those hospitals that had been built at particular places and comment upon the fact that this money was appropriated for the purpose of building hospitals? Mr. HOWE. No, sir; that has come out of the Treasury.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well, then, that argument fails.

Mr. HOWE. I did not make it.

Mr. HOWE. I only want to add a word. I should like to find some common ground on which the Senator from Maine and myself could stand. I was very much,inclined to insist on the idea that these seamen could take care of themselves; but the Senator insists that they cannot and will not. Conceding that he knows more about them than I do, let it be admitted, for the purpose of this argument, that they will not, yet the fact remains that up to 1846 the Gov. ernment did take care of them by means of moneys collected from their wages. The Senator assumes that that fund proved insufficient. I have not seen the evidence of it, and I think there is evidence to the contrary on the statutebook. But suppose it is not sufficient, is not the true remedy to raise it to twenty-five cents a month or thirty cents or forty cents or fifty, or whatever is necessary to do the business, for the Senator asserts that whatever is not collected from them they spend in a thriftless and idle and dissipated way. Then, in

stead of appropriating money that hard labor has earned and put into the Treasury, let us take it out of moneys which otherwise, according to his theory and his argument would be expended in dissipation, and without any profit or good to the seamen. I do not think that is necessary. I do not think humanity calls for this appropriation in that point of view. We make it, not in the interests of humanity, not in the interests of necessity, but in the interests of dissipation and thriftlessness.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Since the debate sprung up I have been looking at the hospital returns, and I find for the year 1866 that there were one hundred and sixteen places where funds were collected off the sailors and as many places where they were disbursed. There were eighty places where they were disbursed to sailors in private modes; and there were thirtysix hospitals where sailors were cared for. Upon the rough estimate I have been able to make while the debate has been going on, I find in round numbers $300,000 expended for the year 1866 for these purposes, for the support of the hospitals and for the support of sailors according to private modes. Then I find in round numbers about one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars collected from the sailors by the twenty cents a month. That would leave a deficiency of about one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars for that year. The year 1867, which is the last, I think, does not differ materially, although there are not as many hospitals. Some of the hospitals have been sold. I believe there are twentysix now, and of course there are more persons supported in private modes. I have not added the figures; but glancing at them I should say that the sum collected and disbursed perhaps was just about the same.

My own recollection on the subject when before the committee on the exhibit presented by the Senator from Wisconsin, was that this thing from small beginnings and from prudent economy had grown up to be somewhat improvident, somewhat largely extended and unthrifty, and that there were extravagant and needless and wasteful expenditure, and that it needed a remedy. Whether the remedy is the one proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin and which the committee propose is for the Senate to consider. I do not believe that the expenditures to the extent that they have been made for the last twenty years in the erection of marine hospitals, a great many of which have been sold as worthless in the last two or three years, should be continued in that way.

I should hope that the reform which has been spoken of by the Senator from Michigan, and which he contemplates will take place under the supervision of the new superintendent who is provided by an act which has passed the Senate, will be all that he expects. Whether it will be or not of course experience alone can test. I am satisfied, however, in any view of it, if Senators think the system ought to prevail and ought to be supported and that this deficiency ought to be provided for and the old policy continued, $150,000 is enough; and if the new board of supervision understand that Congress is looking into this subject and the appropriation should be reduced so as to require them to understand it, I believe it would be both salutary to the service and to the health of the sailors and everybody connected with it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.. The question is on the amendment of the Committee on Appropriations, to strike out the clause as amended.

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

The next amendment was after the word "dollars," in line sixty-seven, to insert:

Provided, That the building shall be completed without any further appropriation by the Govern

ment.

So as to make the clause read :

Toward rebuilding the United States military asylum for disabled soldiers at Togus, near Augusta, Maine, destroyed by accidental fire, $25,000: Pro

vided, That the building shall be completed without any further appropriation by the Government.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seventyfive, to strike out "two" and insert "three;" so as to increase the appropriation "for the survey of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, including compensation of civilians engaged in the work, and excluding pay and emoluments of officers of the Army and Navy and petty officers and men of the Navy employed in the work," from $200,000 to $300,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line seventyeight, to strike out "sixty" and insert "one hundred and thirty;" so as to increase from $60,000 to $130,000 the appropriation "for continuing the survey of the western coast of the United States, including compensation of civilians engaged in the work."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out lines seventy-nine to eighty-four, in the following words:

For continuing the survey of the South Florida. reefs, shoals, keys, and coast, including compensation of civilians engaged in the work, and excluding pay and emoluments of the officers of the Army and Navy, and petty officers and men of the Navy employed in the work, $25,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and seventeen, to strike out one hundred and fifty" and insert "two hundred and eight, so as to increase from $150,000 to $208,000 the appropriation "for the necessary repairs and incidental expenses, improving, and refitting light-houses and buildings connected therewith."

The amendment was agreed to.

For salaries of forty-three keepers of light vessels, $22,300.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to insert the following clause in lines one hundred and seventyfour and one hundred and seventy-five:

For a first order light-house at Point Ano Nuevo, California, or vicinity, $90,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to insert the following clause as lines one hundred and seventynine and one hundred and eighty:

For two buoy and light-house tenders for service on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, $80,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line one hundred and eighty-three to strike out "four," and insertone;" so as to reduce from $4,000 to $1,000 the appropriation "for enabling the light-house board to experiment with new illuminating apparatus and fog-signals, in addition to former appropriations.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to amend the following clause at the close of the appropriations for the revenue-cutter service:

Provided, That the six steam revenue-cutters stationed upon the northern and northwestern lakes and their tributaries shall be laid up, and that no more of the money appropriated by this act shall be paid on their account than so much as may be necessary for their safe and proper care and keeping; and that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to lay up and withdraw from commission every revenue-cutter off the Atlantic coast, bays, gulfs, and so forth, not actually required and needed for constant service.

So as to make it read:

Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to lay up and withdraw from commission the six steam revenue-cutters stationed upon the northern and northwestern lakes and their tributaries, and every revenue-cutter off the Atlantic coast, bays, gulfs, not actually required and needed for constant service.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line two hundred and twenty-five, to strike out "fifty" and insert "one hundred ;" so as to make the appro

priation "for the construction of a customhouse at Portland, Maine, $100,000." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line two hundred and twenty-eight, to strike out " twenty five" and insert "fifty;" so as to increase from

$25,000 to $50,000 the appropriation for the construction of a building, to be used as custom-house and post office at St. Paul, Minnesota."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line two hundred and thirty-five, to increase the appropria: tion for the construction of appraisers' stores at Philadelphia from $25,000 to $75,000. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line two hundred and forty-six, to insert the following: For completion of the extension and repairs of the custom-house at Bangor, Maine, $20,000. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line two hundred and fifty, to insert:

For the completion of the custom-house and post office building at Ogdensburg, New York, $30,000.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I move to amend the amendment by striking out "thirty" and inserting "forty." It should be $40,000 to cover the expense. It is authorized by the

committee.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was adopted. The next amendment was to insert after line two hundred and fifty-six the following: For heating apparatus for custom-houses and other public buildings, $35,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line two hundred and fifty-eight, to insert:

For vaults and safes for depositaries, $25,000,
The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was after line two hundred and sixty-nine, to insert:

For completion of the branch mint building at Carson City, Nevada, fencing the grounds, and for machinery, fixtures, and apparatus, and for putting up the same, $150,000.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have some explanation of that amendment. Has there been any money whatever expended for the erection of buildings there?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir; $75,000 last year.

"Mr. FESSENDEN. I thought it had been decided not to go on with the erection of mints in that region, but to establish assay offices.

Mr. STEWART. The Secretary has finally concluded to carry out the law authorizing it. Mr. FESSENDEN. I had the impression that $75,000 were to be appropriated for the purpose of building an assay office.

Mr. STEWART. There was no appropriation made.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, there was last year.

Mr. STEWART. But it was not used for that I do not think there was any purpose. appropriation last year for an assay office. Mr. FESSENDEN. I had that impression. I only wanted to have some explanation of the amendment, because I know I was decidedly of the opinion that it was very unwise to provide for any more mints, and that all we needed there was an assay office.

Mr. STEWART. I do not think an assay office would be of any use.

Mr. FESSENDEN. That is all they have in Oregon or Idaho, where I think they need a mint more than in Nevada.

Mr. STEWART. Does the Senator mean to say there is more bullion produced in Idaho than Nevada?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes, sir, in Idaho or Montana; and certainly in Oregon.

Mr. STEWART. Oregon, Idaho, and Montana together do not produce as much bullion as Nevada.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think the Senator is very much mistaken about that.

Mr. STEWART. Nevada produces $20,000,000; Idaho, $6,000,000; Montana, $12,000,000. I do not exactly recollect how much Oregon produces; but I think Nevada really produces more than all of them put together. Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not see the necesThe Secretary sity of having so many mints. of the Treasury and the Director of the Mint have recommended that they have in these several places merely assay offices. They answer all the purposes, so far as the people are concerned; while the establishment of large mints in these several States increases the expense very much.

Mr. STEWART. That is not the recommendation of the committee in this case.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is there an estimate for this?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir. There was an appropriation last year of $100,000; I thought it was $75,000; and it has been expended. I have here an account of it.

Mr. STEWART. I now have the estimate of J. Ross Browne of the amount of bullion produced in these States.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I concede the correctness of what the Senator says on that point.

Mr. STEWART. It is $20,000,000 for Nevada, $12,000,000 for Montana, $6,000,000 for Idaho, $1,000,000 for Washington, $2,000,000 for Oregon, $2,500,000 for Colorado, $500,000 in New Mexico, and $500,000 in Arizona.

Is that the actual

Mr. FESSENDEN. yield? Mr. STEWART. That is estimated to be the actual yield.

Mr. CONKLING. How much for Nevada? Mr. STEWART. Twenty million dollars; and I will state that in regard to Nevada they can give a more accurate estimate than of the other States and Territories, from the fact that they can take the figures of the shipments to San Francisco by express. There is no guessing about this $20,000,000. California is put down at $25,000,000; but probably some of that comes from the States that do business there. I think Nevada produces as much as any State.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to know the facts. If the Government is committed to the policy of establishing a mint at this place, of course I have nothing to say.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I think you will find the Government is thoroughly committed to it, and they have proceeded on that idea and expended $100,000. I hold the estimates in my hand. I have here the estimate of the supervising architect of the Treasury Department, who estimates the total cost at $163,302 08, and recommends an appropriation of $75,000. I have also an estimate of $100,000 from Mr. Linderman, the Director of the Mint, for the necessary machinery and apparatus. That is included in the estimate of the total cost. that what was really asked for was $175,000; but I notice in this estimate in round numbers of $100,000. It is said that possibly may be a little high, and so the committee concluded to put it at $150,000, $25,000 less than was asked for.

So

Mr. FESSENDEN. If it has been decided to have a mint there, I have nothing to say. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir; that is settled.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line three hundred and eighteen, to strike out "ten" and insert "fifteen;" so as to increase the appropriation "for continuing the work on the north front of the Patent Office building, and for improving G street from Seventh to Ninth streets," from ten to fifteen thousand dollars. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was on page 17, line three hundred and eighty-four, to strike out "thirty" and insert " fifty;' so as to make the clause read:

For surveying the public lands in California, at rates not exceeding fifteen dollars per lineal mile for

line four hundred and twenty-five, to strike out the following clause:

For care and improvement of grounds south of the President's House, $1,000.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We may as well strike them all out now, as we have stricken out the other.

The question being put on the amendment, there were on a division-ayes 10, noes 8; no quorum voting.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I shall have to call the yeas and nays unless Senators vote one way or the other. I ask the Senate to divide again.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will put the question again.

Mr. ANTHONY. Will the chairman of the committee explain what this amendment is? I do not understand it.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The amend ment is to strike out an appropriation of $1,000 || for the care and improvement of the grounds south of the President's House.

Mr. ANTHONY. That is, taking care of the walks, trees, shrubs, &c.

I

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Yes, sir. stated the case fully a few moments ago. It is one of a class of items here; and having struck out the first one, I supposed that that was the judgment of the Senate, and that they would proceed to strike out the others. They either ought to do that, or else reverse their judgment on the other amendment. There is just as much propriety in one of them as the other.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like the gentlemen on this side of the Chamber to understand this question. The clause we struck out was a small appropriation of $2,000 for taking care of and gradually improving La Fayette square, a large square in front of the President's House, where there are many valuable shrubs, trees, &c.

Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator from Maine will permit me, I will move to reconsider the vote by which that clause was stricken out.

Mr. FESSENDEN. As soon as I have explained it a little further I will do so. It also provided for reservation No 2, which is the Smithsonian grounds, which belong to the Government. The bill appropriated simply for a person or two persons to take care of them and keep the walks clean, trim the trees, look after them, and keep them in order, the sum of $2,000, a very small appropriation, indeed..

Mr. HOWE. Will the Senator explain for what the twenty-one laborers and a foreman are employed in the public grounds, for which we appropriated $19,296 in the legislative appropriation bill?

Mr. FESSENDEN. They are employed as laborers under General Michler in the public grounds. There are public grounds about this building where they are continually employed, and other public grounds.

Mr. HOWE. Are they kept on one part of the public grounds? Are they not employed on both these reservations?

Mr. FESSENDEN. They may be at some portions of the time, but I am instructed by the commissioner who has charge of them that he needs one man something above an ordinary common laborer, who has some judg ment about grounds, and the improvement and care of the grounds that are thus laid out, to keep them in order. He needs a skilled gardener in each of them continually to look after them. All that is appropriated for that is $1,000 for each reservation. Then the next clause appropriates $1,000 for the grounds in front of the President's house, on the lower side immediately surrounding his house. Another person is needed there. In regard to these three I have no doubt whatever of their necessity. On the next page of the bill you will see there is an appropriation "for care of reservations on New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland avenues, $3,000." There are four reservations. They are surrounded by common wooden fences. The superintendent says he needs somebody there continually to

look after those, and $3,000 are appropriated for the four, and those he wishes to improve as the others have been improved, to set out trees on them, &c. He says that unless you have somebody there to watch them the fences are torn away and burnt; the trees are cut down; and he wants to improve them. We all want that done. They are our public grounds, and gradually we ought to spend some small sum for the sake of beautifying them, and not leave them as dirty, filthy places for all sorts of stuff to be piled up in, to be made an eyesore rather than a place of beauty. He remarked to me that $3,000 was as small a sum as he thought he could get along with for the purpose of taking care of these four reservations and improving them gradually. I think they ought to be improved. I think he is right about that. I think any other idea is a niggardly and mean one. That is my notion about it, although I do not feel particularly interested in this matter in this city.

Then there is an appropriation for the care of the Circle, where the statue of Washington is. He has got there a one-armed or a onelegged soldier, to whom he gives $600 a year to look after it, and for the $400 additional there is some under-draining to be done; so that he needs $1,000 for the next year for the Circle. That is the exposition of it, and understanding it the Senate, of course, will do what they think best.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Maine that if the Superintendent of Public Property, or whatever he is, is going to improve these four reservations at $3,000, it is about as little as it could be done on; but I should like to know if the chairman of the Committee on Public Grounds really means to tell the Senate that he wants $3,000 in order to execute improvements on those reservations!

Mr. FESSENDEN. To execute improvements and to pay the men employed.

Mr. HOWE. Three thousand dollars to be appropriated by the nation to fix up these four public squares!

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator is speak ing of its being a very small sum. The commissioner's idea is not to do it all at once, but to do it gradually.

Mr. HOWE. To do it gradually! Doing it so gradually as that, you would never perceive that you were making any improvement at all, and so the nation would be a thousand years older than it is to-day, and you never would begin your improvements. Three thousand dollars is wanted to pay men to sit there on the walks, and to keep other folks out, I suppose, under pretense of preventing trespass, or something of that sort; it is not to make improvements.

If the superintendent will tell what improvements he wants to make on these reservations, what fences, what walks are to be made, what trees are to be set out; if he will tell what he wants to do, and with what sum he will do it, I dare say the Committee on Appropriations will agree to pay the money. But that is not what this appropriation is asked for. Why, sir, you have been appropriating $1,000 a year to take care of that circle ever since you were a child, I suppose. I have not looked back to see how long. But you want $1,000 this year. Why? Because $600 is to go to a onearmed soldier and $400 to do a little more draining. What was done with the $400 appropriated a year ago, and the $400 appropri ated the year before that? Was there a little more draining done then?

Mr. President, these appropriations are made to take care of individuals. I have not much objection to it. I do not care much what becomes of the public moneys. I am pretty well satisfied that what you do not pay out in these driblets you pile up into millions and give to some favorite; so that I have no particular objection to this. But I want you to dismiss the idea that you are going to get any public square benefited or beautified by this appropriation. It is not going to come. You

have provided in another bill for a foreinan and twenty-one laborers to take care of these grounds, to do the work which the superintendent wants done on them. It is in a proper place, and all the work that he wants done should have been appropriated for there, and all he said he wanted done was appropriated there. These appropriations are really to employ watchmen."

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the Senator show where it has been done somewhere else.

Mr. HOWE. In the legislative appropriation bill which passed here a few days ago. Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the Senator point it out.

Mr. HOWE. It is on page 18, commencing at the three hundred and eighth line.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator be kind enough to find it and point it out, instead of making a broad assertion?

Mr. HOWE. I am trying to point the Senator to it. I say it is on the thirteenth page, commencing with the three hundred and eighth line, and it reads as follows:

For compensation of a foreman, and twenty-one laborers employed in the public grounds, $19,296.

That is in the appropriations under the head of "public buildings and grounds." That is all he asked for that purpose then; and I say this money is asked for merely to employ men to watch the grounds which these men cultivate and improve; and it was the opinion of the Committee on Appropriations, that inasmuch as we paid an immense police force here to do the watching, they could watch the property of the United States as well as the property of individuals, and were under as much obligation to do it as we paid them for their services.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, my friend from Wisconsin has a wonderful faculty. He knows more about every subject than the men do who are specially employed to ascertain about it, and to do what is necessary. Now, he undertakes to tell General Michler that he has not recommended these things; that he does not need them; that he does not want them; that he has provided for them somewhere else; that he does not know anything about them; and that if he has an idea of stating to me, as chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, that he wants these sums for these specific purposes, it is all a mistake; he does not want them. Now, how does the Senator happen to be so knowing as to what General Michler wants, and what he does not want, directly in the face and eyes of what he says? These appropriations are recommended by him. Does he not understand his business? He devotes himself all the time to it. He is the Superintendent of the Public Grounds, and he says he wants so many men generally under him, ordinary laborers, and a superintendent of laborers. You see them employed about here in taking care of these grounds, and doing the work about here; and he says in addition to that he wants these particular men and particular sums for these particular purposes. Now, what right has the Senator to say he does not want them, or does not recommend them, to say the least of it, and that he does not know what he is about? I do not pretend to know anything more about this matter than what I am told by the proper officer, who states not only in writing to the committee in making his recommendation in the first place, but states to me in addition, when I asked him for an explanation, just exactly what I have stated to the Senate; and yet the Senator from Wisconsin says it is a mistake; he does not know anything about it ; he does not recommend it in fact; it is all a mistake. Where does the Senator get his information? That is all I want to know about it. If it is such an error, so be it. If Senators undertake to say that the Superintendent of Public Grounds meant to include all these items in that appropriation in the general appropriation bill for so many laborers and a foreman that is one thing. If they think that is enough without this, that is one thing, and

Senators can act upon it; but to undertake to tell me that this is all a mistake, and that the Superintendent of Public Grounds does not know what he is saying, does not know what he means, I think is a little beyond the Senator's jurisdiction. We have a right to conclude that he does know what he means. I care nothing about this matter. If the Senate choose to say that these public grounds that have been improved and ornamented shall be left to take care of themselves, so be it. I never go there myself; so I do not care anything about it particularly; but I think it would be a very extraordinary thing to do.

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, let the Senator from Maine manufacture the speech he wants to reply to, and he will make about as conclusive a reply as any man I ever heard in debate. But if you confine him to replying to a speech he listens to, he either makes a mistake in his reply or he makes terrible mistakes in his statement of the speech to which he is replying. So the first difference between the Senator from Maine and myself is upon a question of fact as to whether I have said any such thing as he has been replying to. I have not undertaken to say that the Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds did not know what his business was. I have not assumed to know more than everybody else about this business. I do not think I do really, if you want to put me on the stand. I will tell you what advantage I really have over other folks. I tell nearer what I know than some do, and I do not undertake to say what I do not. I said of the Superintendent, not that he did not want this money-I think it likely he does-I said of the Superintendent not that he had not recommended these appropriations; I said he did not recommend them in that bill when he was called upon to recommend for the force he wanted to cultivate these public grounds. And I did say one thing more, which the Senator did not accuse me of saying, and that was that if you made these appropriations, you must dismiss the idea of having your grounds look any better next year than they do this year at this time.

Mr. FESSENDEN. We want to keep them looking as well. That is the very thing.

Mr. HOWE. They will be kept looking as well, I suppose, by these twenty-one laborers; but for improvement" is the term implied here; gradual improvements," the Senator from Maine says, undertaking to interpret the Superintendent. Now, I say that the improvement which is made by these beggarly appro priations will be too gradual. If the Senator means to be understood that the Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds is going to improve and beautify these squares with these appropriations, I think he cannot do it; but the Senator really does not say that that is what he proposes to do. If I say they are to pay merely watchmen, or to pay for men who are substituted for the police there, then the argument is: it is not for that, but for improvements. But if I say they cannot improve the grounds with these small appropriations, then the argument is that it is wanted to keep them up to the point they are now.

Mr. President, I have taken altogether too much time in discussing this matter. I really do not care anything about it. It does annoy me a little, in spite of all the experience I have had, to see these little sums of money thrown away. But as I have said before, they will do about as much good to individuals when they are paid to one-armed soldiers, or soldiers with two arms, or men with two arms who never saw the Army, as they will if they are left to accumulate in larger bills and then be thrown away in a bulk; so I am willing that the Senate, if they insist upon it, shall vote this appropriation, but I do insist that we shall not get any better looking grounds.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. All I desire to say is, that having called the attention of the Senate to this general subject, so to speak, embracing these several items, I have done my duty in regard to it. I suppose the Senate will follow its vote on the item, the reconsideration of which is now moved, and if the Senate please I will regard that as a test question. If the Senate is disposed to reconsider that amendment, then I will take it for granted, so far as I am concerned, as the sense of the Senate, that all these amendments proposed by the committee are not desirable.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to, there being on a division-ayes 20, noes 13.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the adoption of the amendment reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The amendment was rejected.

Mr. SUMNER. I think it will be difficult to get through with this bill to-night. I have already mentioned

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. We are very nearly through now with the amendments of the committee. Let us have ten minutes more.

Mr. SUMNER. There will probably be amendments that will lead to discussion. There is occasion for an executive session. I hope, therefore, the Senator will not make any opposition if I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. MORTON. We can get through in twenty minutes.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If the Senator will withdraw his motion for ten minutes we can dispose of all the amendments of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SUMNER. Very well; I am always accommodating.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading of the bill will be proceeded with.

The next amendment was after line four hundred and thirty-two, to strike out the following clause:

For care of reservations on New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland avenues, $3,000. The amendment was rejected.

The next amendment was after line four hundred and forty-two, to strike out the following clause:

For care of the Circle, $1,000.

Mr. HOWARD. I should like an explanation of the chairman of the committee as to the necessity of this appropriation, "for the care of the Circle, $1,000?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. The same necessity that obtains in the cases that have just been decided as to the care of these other reservations..

Mr. HOWARD. What necessity has there ever existed for any such appropriation as this? Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. This is the res ervation known as the Circle. There is precisely the same necessity for that, I suppose, that there is for the appropriations already made in regard to the others.

tion of this appropriation; whether he dissents from or concurs in the recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations with regard to this appropriation of $1,000 for the Circle?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I think if we were to appropriate $400 it would be enough; but then you would have to dispense with the man who is employed there entirely, and not have a man making it his exclusive business. I think the appropriation might be cut down. Mr. HOWARD. I move to strike out $1,000 and insert $400.

Mr. SUMNER. Say $500.
Mr. HOWARD.. No; $400.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the amendment to the amendment, striking out $1,000 and inserting $400.

Mr. HOWE. I am embarrassed just this much in voting on that motion: we have been voting down some amendments recommended by the Committee on Appropriations because the specific appropriations which we wished to strike out were recommended by the Superintendent of Public Works. The chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds said he did not know anything about them; but the Superintendent recommended them, and he must be understood to know what he wanted. The Senate took that view of it, and because the Superintendent asked for the appropriations they voted down the amendments recommended by the Committee on Appropriations, and voted the appropriations asked for by the Superintendent. Now, the Superintendent asks for this appropriation of $1,000. We have the same authority for voting this that we had for voting the others.. But the chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings "goes back" on the Superintendent on this question, and he tells us that $400 are enough in Washington, and fifty dollars would be enough anywhere else for this purpose. believe the Senator from Maine, really, and I think I shall vote with him, although in doing so I must fly in the face and eyes of the principle just settled by the vote of the Senate on a solemn division. Still, I do not think the Senate will care anything about it; and so I guess I will vote for the measure.

I

Mr. CONKLING. I hope the Senate will not adopt this amendment. The Senator from Maine says there is a one-legged soldier at this Circle, and therefore this proposition at least has one leg to stand upon, and that is one more leg than any of these other appropriations have, as I understand it. After investigating the subject, as we did in committee, we came to the conclusion, and I have seen nothing to change that conclusion, that there is an abundance of force provided for in the other bills to do all this service, and that what the Senate have now been attaching to the bill are so many excrescences, so much of surplus appropriations, which I believe might as well be flung into the Potomac or into the sea. Now, it seems this man has one leg, and $600 dollars go to him, and the other $400 is dispersed around this Circle. I understood the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] to say it was to be graded. It is about as large as a leather apron now, and I should think that more grading might perhaps be useful; but at any rate I go for the soldier, and particularly for his one leg, and I am against this clause being stricken out after what the Senate have done.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected; there being on a division-ayes nine, noes not counted.

The amendment of the committee was re

The next amendment was, after line four hundred and fifty-five, to strike out the following clause:

For care, support, and medical treatment of sixty transient paupers, medical and surgical patients, in some proper medical institution in the city of Washington, under a contract to be formed with such institution, $12,000, or so much thereof as may be

necessary.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I desire to make one remark on that amendment. The committee recommend to strike out this clause,