lion six hundred and seventy-eight thousand For the ordinary expenditures of Government for the fiscal year which has just begun the appropriations are as follows: Executive, legislative, and judicial, embracing all For the Navy. West Point Military Academy. Indian bureau, treaties, &c............. Collecting the revenue.. Sundry civil expenditures connected 33,081,013 10 6,020,000 00 9,000,000 00 2,560,000 00 ..$106,818,447 10 I differ in some items from the recent statement of the honorable chairman of Ways and Means, for I think he included in the expenses of this year a deficiency of thirteen million dollars resulting from the Indian war of 1867; which amount was appropriated and spent last year and has no proper connection whatever with the expenditures of the current fiscal year. And he also includes, incorrectly I think, some twenty-four million appropriations overlapping from the year which has closed to the present. I say incorrectly, because this amount will be offset by a similar amount which overlaps from this year to the next, about the same amount going over each year, and this from necessity owing to the mode of disbursement. I have also made the amount for bounties ten millions less than the chairman estimates, because a large proportion which he includes in this year will necessarily be paid in the ensuing year, when it is hoped the whole matter will be closed, the last soldier honorably paid off, and the Treasury relieved from further obligation in that direction. gold, to bring the expenditures of the two eras the interior of the continent and to the shores of the Pacific, through all our remote Territories and sparsely peopled sections, and have also been able to maintain a superb line of mail steamers from San Francisco to Hong Kong and from New York to Rio Janeiro, none of which extraordinary enterprises and expenditures were levied on the Department during Buchanan's administration. These comparisons might be quite indefinitely continued, exhibiting in each item the same result, and demonstrating with mathematical certainty that when we take into account the vast increase of population and the rapid and unprecedented development of our country during the time the Republican party has been in power, and when we take into further account the fact that we have been all the while sub vantage of high prices resulting from paper money; taking, I say, these facts into account, I assert and defy contradiction that large as our expenditures have necessarily been they have yet been on a scale of economy and fidelity quite unknown during the last Ďemocratic administration that afflicted the country. And I assert further, and I call both political friend and foe to the witness stand in support of my declaration, that whenever and wherever General Grant has been able to control governmental expenditure, economy, integrity, fidelity, and rigid retrenchment and reduction have been the unvarying result. This calculation, stated in these general terms, is far more striking and suggestive when you come to examine details. The Army, for instance, cost during the four years of Buchanan's administration, by the official statement of the Treasury Department, which I hold injected as a necessity of the war to the disadmy hand, the large aggregate of $86,307,575 55, making an average of well nigh twenty-two millions each year in gold. And at that time the Army consisted in all of nineteen regiments; so that each regiment cost considerably over a million each year in gold. The Army at present contains sixty regiments, and yet the whole appropriation asked for by General Grant amounts to little more than thirtythree millions, a trifle more than half a million per regiment each year in paper. In other words, the Army under the peace establishment of a Democratic administration immediately preceding the war cost per regiment largely more in gold than the Army now costs per regiment in paper under the peace establishment as administered by General Grant. The same scale of expenditure indulged in under the administration of Buchanan would make our present Army cost over seventy mil-reducing taxation. Within the three years lions in gold or a hundred millions in paper; and until the latter figure is exceeded the Democratic partisans of Buchanan can have no ground to charge that Army expenses are extravagant. When we look at the actual amount spent for legitimate Army expenses, we see good ground for the high compliment bestowed by President Johnson when, a few months since, he publicly proclaimed "General Grant's judicious economy as the direct cause of saving many millions to the Treasury.' With General Grant's election to the Presidency and the final pacification of the southern States, our Army will at once be reduced and the expenditures of the War Department will be brought to a point so inconsiderable as no longer to be felt as a burden to the tax-payer. Consider further, Mr. Chairman, that while the Republican party has been providing the means for these expenditures, they have been at the same time effecting immense reductions in the public debt and continually and largely that have elapsed since the war closed and the Army was mustered out, we have reduced the public debt between two and three hundred million dollars, and at each session of Congress, while this reduction of the debt was going on, we have taken off millions upon millions of taxation from the productive industry of the nation. At the first session of the ThirtyNinth Congress, the first that convened after the close of the war, taxes were removed that had the preceding year yielded a revenue of sixty million dollars, and at the second session of the same Congress forty-one millions more of taxes were promptly repealed. The Fortieth Congress has not been behind the Thirty-Ninth in this respect, for we have already repealed taxes that last year gave us a revenue of ninety millions. And to-day the taxes of the Federal Government are so wisely adjusted, and collected from such few sources that no man feels them burdensome, oppressive, or exacting. Demagogues may misrepresent and partisans may assail, but the people know and feel that to-day the taxes levied by the Federal Government are not an oppression to the individual and not a hinderance to the development of the industrial resources of the land. The comparison in regard to naval expenditures at the two periods I have named, are equally suggestive and striking. For the four years of Buchanan's administration the Navy, by the official records, cost fifty-two million six hundred and forty-five thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight dollars and eighty-nine cents— showing an average of more than thirteen millions per annum in gold coin. With a much larger Navy, and with the disadvantage of paper The history of the Republican party, Mr. money and high prices, our appropriations this Chairman, is indeed a proud record. Inherityear are a trifle under eighteen millions. Taking a bankrupt Treasury, a dishonored credit, ing the difference in the size of the Navy at the two periods and the disparity between gold and paper and we should be authorized, if we followed the Buchanan standard of expenditure, in appropriating well nigh forty millions for the year's service. These facts are certainly suggestive and instructive. Adding together these ordinary expenditures, as I have above, the sum total is found to be one hundred and six million eight hundred and eighteen thousand four hundred and fortyseven dollars. If Congress can be accused of extravagance, the accusation must be made good on these figures, or else abandoned, for the other expenditures, as I have already repeated, lie without the pale of congressional In our Post Office expenditures, as compared discretion or control. A clear estimate of the with those of the Democratic regimé, the differcharacter of these expenditures may be gath- ence is, if anything, more striking than in the ered by comparing them with the outlays in- relative expenses of the Army and Navy. Becurred under the last Democratic administra-sides using up all the postal receipts, the Post tion. For example, in 1857-58 the same class of expenses in Buchanan's administration were over seventy million dollars in gold, whereas the one hundred and six million eight hundred and eighteen thousand four hundred and fortyseven dollars above named are in paper. It must be observed, moreover, that in 1857-58 the population of this country was under thirty millions, whereas to-day it is well nigh forty millions. Adding forty per cent. premium on and a gigantic rebellion from the traitorous Administration which preceded their advent to power in 1861, the Republicans heroically and successfully grappled with and conquered all these obstacles to the life and progress of the nation. They replenished the Treasury; they redeemed our credit; they subdued the mightiest rebellion that ever confronted civil power since Governments were instituted among men ; they struck the shackles from four millions of human beings, and gave them every civil right under the Constitution and laws. And while accomplishing these herculean tasks, the Republican party administered the Government so wisely that prosperity has been all the time abroad in the land; great business enterprises Office Department for the three last years of cuted; factories have been built; the forest subdued; farms brought under cultivation; navigable rivers improved; thousands of miles of railway constructed; the continent spanned by telegraph wires; the two oceans well nigh connected by a road of iron; the emigrant protected on the remotest frontier; Territories carved out of the wilderness domain; and new States of promise and power added to the national Union. What other party in the history of this country ever confronted such difficulties? What other party ever gained such victories? But great as its achievements have been, its work is not yet finished. Out of the fierce conflicts of the recent past, conflicts indeed still raging, order and harmony, conciliation and friendship, are yet to be evoked; not, indeed, by unwise concession and timid compromise, but by that firm policy which is based on Right, and under the leadership of one, who, so terribly earnest in war, is yet to-day the embodiment of peace, the conservator of public justice, the hope of the loyal millions! The CHAIRMAN. All general debate is now closed. Mr. RANDALL. I want to say that there is no truth in the remark of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] that the Republican party put down the rebellion. Had not the Democrats shouldered their muskets and gone into the ranks the rebellion would never have been put down. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RANDALL] is not in order. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move pro forma to amend the first amendment of the Senate, my object being to say that the Senate has made two hundred and twenty-seven amendments to this bill. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence in about fifty of the amendments and non-concurrence in the remainder, so that they may go to a committee of conference for adjustment. I withdraw my pro forma amendment. The amendments of the Senate were read. First amendment: On page 3, after the word "dollars," in line fortyfour, insert, clerk to Committee on Appropriations, $2,220." The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Second amendment: On page 3, in line fifty-two, strike out "$864" and insert "$1,000;" so that the clause will read: One special policeman, $1,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. In the paragraph for the compensation of the clerks, &c.. of the Senate, make the total $100,920 80, instead of $98,704, The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Strike out" twenty-five" and insert "ten;" so the paragraph will read: For contingent expenses of the Senate, namely; For stationery, $10,000. The Committee on Appropriations recom mend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Fifth amendment: copies taken, one cent for every five pages exceeding fifteen hundred, including the indexes and the laws of the United States, $10,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendments were concurred in. Strike out "$3,500" and insert "$1,000;" so the paragraph will read: For packing boxes for Senators, $1,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Tenth amendment: Strike out "$11,520" and insert "$6,520;" so the paragraph under the head of the House of Representatives will read: Twelve messengers during the session, at the rate of $1,440 per annum, $6,520. The Committee on Appropriations recom. mend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Strike out the following: For the Capitol police, $64,000. For one captain, $2,088; two lieutenants, at $1,800 each, $3,600; thirty privates, at $1,584 each, $47,520; twelve watchmen, at $1.000 each, $12,000; one superintendent in the crypt, $1,440; uniforms, $4,600; contingent expenses, $500; making in all, $71,748; one half to be paid into the contingent fund of the Senate, and the other half into the contingent fund of the House of Representatives. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. COBB. I move to concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment. I move to strike out the words "" one superintendent in the crypt, $1,440," and to insert in lieu thereof the following: For thirteen watchmen, including the superintendent in the crypt, at $1,400 each, $18,200. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Let this be non-concurred in by the House, and let it go to a committee of conference, and they will have control of the whole matter. I think it likely his amendment is a good one. section was non-concurred in to be sent to the committee of conference, in order that it may be made more perfect. The Mr. COBB. I hope, then, that the gentleman from Illinois will give my amendment his attention. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not know that I will be on the committee of conference. I have no doubt it will be made more satisfactory in the committee of conference. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The Senate amendment was non-concurred in. Twelfth amendment: Strike out "three thousand" and insert "fifteen hundred;" so the paragraph will read: For paying the publishers of the Congressional Globe and Appendix, according to the number of copies taken, one cent for every five pages exceeding fifteen hundred, including the indexes and the laws of the United States, $9,500. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Strike out "fifty" and insert "forty-two;" so that it will read: For folding documents, ineluding materials, $42,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in.. Strike out "twelve" and insert "five;" so that it will read: For laborers, $5,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Strike out "seventy" and insert "fifty;" so that it will read: For miscellaneous items, $50,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Sixteenth amendment: Strike out the following: For newspapers, $12,500. And insert in licu thereof the following: For stationery and newspapers for two hundred and fifty members and delegates, to the amount of $125 each, $31,250. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Seventeenth amendment: Strike out "$16,000" and insert "$6,720;" so that it will read: For twenty-five pages and three temporary mail boys, $6,720. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Eighteenth amendment: Strike out "thirty" and insert "fifteen;" so that it will read: For stationery $15,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Nineteenth amendment: After the word "dollars" insert the following: Provided, That the salary of the foreman of binding in the Government Printing Office shall hereafter be $1,800 per annum. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Twentieth and twenty-first amendments: Strike out "four" and insert "three;" strike out "$3,456" and insert "$2,592;" so that it will read: For three laborers, at $864 each, $2,592. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendments were concurred in. Twenty-second and twenty-third amend ments: Strike out "two" and insert "three;" strike out "$2,880" and insert "$4.320;" so that it will read: For three assistant librarians, at $1,440 each, $4,320. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendments were concurred in. Twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth amendments: Strike out "three" and insert "five:" strike out "three" and insert "four;" so that it will read: For Botanic Garden, grading, draining, procuring manure, tools, fuel, and repairs, and purchasing trees and shrubs, under the direction of the Library Committee of Congress, $5,400. The committee recommend concurrence. The Committee on Appropriations thought that when a claimant had been through the Court of Claims, established his loyalty, established the justice of his claim, and got a judgment, it would not be right then to say that he should not have that judgment paid, whatever might be the size of the judgment. The justice of a judgment does not depend upon its size, and if we undertake to restrict payments to $5,000, there is no reason why we should not restrict it to $3,000, $2,000, or $1,000. We must leave it to the court, if we leave anything to them, to say what shall be the amount of the judgment, and after that judgment has been found by the court which we have established then it is not right and proper that a claimant who has struggled through and established the justice of his claim should be shut off. The Committee on Appropriations, therefore, recommend that the amendment shall be concurred in, and whoever shall vote for concurrence will vote in accordance with the unanimous report of the committee of the Senate, the action of the Senate and the report of the Committee on Appropriations-I will not say how nearly unanimous, because I am not allowed to say it. Mr. PETERS. I would ask the gentleman whether the sum appropriated was not presumed by the committee to be sufficient to cover large and small judgments? Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. That is what we meant to do, sir. Mr. SPALDING. I merely wish to remark that if we limit the sum to be paid out of this appropriation to $5,000 we virtually limit the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to $5,000. No member of this committee wishes to do that. We do not expect to cut down the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to $5,000. And if not, why should we limit the payments of money which they adjudicate to be due to within that sum? It seemed to the majority of the Committee on Appropriations that there was no propriety in it at all, and we therefore recommend concurrence in the amendment of the Senate. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word, for the purpose of calling the attention of the committee to the facts of the case. The Committee on Appropriations and the House of Representatives originally agreed to this proposition unanimously. They appropriated $100,000 for the payment of judgments of the Court of Claims, and the effect of this provision was to say that the $100,000 should not be gobbled up by any one man who had a great judgment, but should be divided among men who had smaller judgments, under $5,000. I think it is just and right and proper that we should non-concur in the amendment of the Senate. Mr. INGERSOLL. I rise to oppose the amendment. This proposition strikes me as simply a stay-law in favor of the United States. It is a confession that the United States is not able to pay its just judgments or its creditors, provided we owe them over $5,000 each. A creditor who presses his demands through this court to judgment can have his money provided the Government does not owe him over $5,000, but not otherwise. By this arbitrary rule the small creditor will have his pay, while the man who credited the Government to the extent of twenty, fifty, or one hundred thousand dollars, perhaps with his all, shall have nothing. Is there any justice in this? Is there any honor in it? Is there any equity in it? Is there any common sense in it? I cannot see that there is, and I shall vote to concur with the Senate amendment in striking out this proviso. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I renew the amendment to the amendment, for the purpose of saying that I cannot see what anybody can expect to gain by striking out this proviso: that is, if we mean to pay our debts. If we do not mean to pay our debts, but pro40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 232. pose to go upon the stealing principle, it may be possible that we can commit petty larceny and get along in that way for some years. When this court of claims was originally established, Congress provided that the judgments of that court should be reported to Congress, who made appropriations or not to satisfy those judgments as they chose. But that was found to be a very bad plan. Congress then passed a law making the findings of the Court of Claims conclusive. And now Congress every year makes appropriations, not extravagant, of what is supposed may be necessary to satisfy the judgments of the Court of Claims against the United States. This year we have put the amount very low, at $100,000. Now, what is the use of a Court of Claims, or of providing by law that the findings of that court shall be conclusive, if the amount is to be frittered away, and $5,000 paid to one, and $5,000 to another, &c., the judgment of the court still standing, to run for twenty years it may be? I can see no kind of judgment-I will not use a harder term than that-I can see no kind of judgment in such conduct. The Court of Claims find judgments, and find them conclusively. Instead of asking the claimants to wait until Congress meets at another session, we put into the hands of the Treasurer a certain amount to be paid to them after they have gone through all the expense of collecting in vacation time. Is there anything but what is decent and proper in that? Is there anything but what is just in it? I cannot possibly see why this two-penny system should be adopted. It reminds me of a man I once heard of, about whom it was said that if he owed a dollar he would not pay it all at once, but in ten installments; that he would pay ten cents at one time, and then ride seven miles the next day to pay another ten cents, and so on, because he did not want to pay out too much at once. This is very much like the practice of that old uncle of mine, old uncle Abel. I hope, therefore, that no such system as this will be adopted, but that we will pay what we owe. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I wish to add a single further suggestion which has occurred to me, and to which I do not see the answer. The House some three years ago adopted an amendment to an appropriation bill, in which the Senate concurred, to the effect that no judgment of the Court of Claims should be paid until it was revised by the Secretary of the Treasury. Thereupon the Supreme Court insisted that they would not entertain any appeal from the Court of Claims, because there was a restriction upon the judgment of the court, and they did not intend to adjudicate upon cases of appeal which, when they had given their final judgment, somebody else was to revise; and they dismissed all appeals upon that ground at that time. It therefore became necessary, at the very next session, to repeal that law. And I am not at all certain but what we are going to get into a similar difficulty by putting this restriction upon the judgment of the Court of Claims. Mr. LOAN. I desire to ask the gentleman if the Committee on Appropriations have so far investigated this matter as to satisfy themselves that $100,000 will be sufficient to pay all the judgments of the Court of Claims during the coming year? Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir; this is expected to be enough, with the balance that still remains from former appropriations. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment. Mr. KELSEY. I move to strike out $5,000 and insert $4,000. There is a peculiar propriety in placing funds at the disposal of this Court of Claims to pay the small creditors of the Government who establish their claims in that court. But Congress has never been willing to give that court unlimited jurisdiction of funds to pay all the large judgments that may be obtained there. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. Let me say that so far as the jurisdiction of the court goes Congress has now authorized-it does not every year appropriate the money-the placing in the Treasury of the funds necessary to pay the judgments of the court when rendered. Mr. KELSEY. We by this bill authorize the placing the sum of $100,000 for this purpose Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I do not refer to this bill, but to a former law. Mr. KELSEY. We authorize the appropriation of $100,000 for the purpose of paying these creditors whose claims are not large; and there is this reason for it: the man who has been put to the expense of establishing his claim, and has obtained a judgment in the Court of Claims for $5,000 or less, has been put to all the expense that he can bear in obtaining his claim from the Government. Not so with the man whose claim reaches hundreds of thousands of dollars; and this court has jurisdiction of claims to an unlimited amount. But I suppose that the House, in passing the bill in its original form, intended to say that while they were willing that these small judgments should be paid when rendered by the court, they were not willing to give the court the control of the funds to pay these large judg ments until Congress had reviewed and passed upon that question. That was the law but a few years ago, when all judgments of that court had to be reported to this House that appropriations might be made, if Congress saw fit, for their payment. I think that that is the proper course to be pursued now with respect to these large judgments. But such a rule would operate oppressively upon the men who obtain small judgments against the Government. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to adhere to the bill as originally passed by the House, that being the best shape in which we can put this matter for protecting the interests both of the Government and of the suitors in the court. Mr. ROSS. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. KELSEY.] I think the Senate has evinced good sense in striking out this provision. When we have established a court for the purpose of passing upon these claims there appears to be a propriety in having its judgments carried out. If the court is unworthy of our confidence it should be abolished and some better tribunal established. I know of no reason why a person having a large claim against the Government is not entitled to have that claim paid as well as a man having a small claim. I think there is a propriety in leaving this matter with the court and paying the judgments which they render. But I can see very well that this does not suit the theory of my colleague, [Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois.] His theory is to hoard all the Government funds, and convert them into gold for the purpose of paying the bondholders, while the people who have debts due from the Government may wait. If men have furnished supplies to the Government during the progress of the war to put down the rebellion, and have been kept out of their money for four or five years, the gentleman's theory--and I suppose that of his candidate-is to say to such men, "Stand back, you who have claims against the Government; we have got to convert all our means into gold for the purpose of paying the bondholders, and in the mean time we will draw in the currency; we will subject to financial pressure the poor people of the country; we will hoard our gold as much as we can, that we may turn it into the hands of the bankers and the bondholders." That appears to be the theory of my colleague. All the honest claims of men who have been knocking at the doors of Congress for years receive uniformly the opposition of my colleague; but whenever there is anything that favors the bondholders or the bankers, whenever there is anything that tends to withdraw the people's money from circulation and to impair their ability to pay the onerous taxes which are bearing them down, my colleague is for it. I am very sorry that he is running his presidential candidate into this groove. I hope that when the 4th of July shall have passed by we shall have a candidate to whom the people can look for help in this time of emergency. Mr. KELSEY. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I renew the amendment. I simply wish to say in reply to my colleague [Mr. Ross] that I do not propose to enter into the question which he has discussed. My position is sustained by my constituents, while his constituents, I believe, have thrown him overboard. [Laughter.] I withdraw the amendment. On concurring in the amendment of the Senate, there were-ayes 26, noes 23; no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN, under the rules, ordered tellers; and appointed Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, and Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The committee divided; and the tellers reported-ayes fifty-two, noes not counted. So the amendment was concurred in. Thirtieth amendment: On page 13 strike out the following: For compensation to the Private Secretary, assistant secretary, short-hand writer, clerk of pardons, three clerks of fourth class, steward, and messenger of the President of the United States, $18,800. And insert in lieu thereof the following: For compensation to the Private Secretary, one clerk of class four, steward, and messenger of the Presidentofthe United States, eight $8,200: Provided. That so much of the fourth section of the act of July 23, 1866, making appropriation for legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1867, as authorizes the President of the United States to appoint an assistant secretary, a short-hand writer, a clerk of pardons, and two clerks of the fourth class is hereby repealed. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Thirty-first amendment: Strike out "$538" and insert "$720;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation to the laborer in charge of the water-closets in the Capitol, $720. The Committee on Appropriations recominend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Thirty-second amendment: Strike out $16,080" and insert "$19,296;" so the paragraph will read as follows: For compensation of a foreman and twenty-one laborers employed in the public grounds, $19,296. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Thirty-third amendment: Strike out "nine" and insert "eight;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of two watchmen at the President's House, $1,800. The Committee on Appropriations recom mend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Thirty-fourth amendment: Strike out "$720" and insert "$1,000;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of the doorkeeper at the President's House, $1,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Thirty-fifth amendment: Strike out the following: For compensation of assistant doorkeeper at the President's House, $720. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Strike out the following: For compensation of one night watchman at the public stables and carpenter's shops south of the Capitol, $1,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Strike out "$3,600" and insert "$5,000;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of five watchmen in reservation No. 2, $5,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Thirty-eighth amendment: Strike out "five," and insert "seven;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of draw-keepers at the Potomac bridge, and for fuel, oil, and lamps, $7,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Thirty-ninth amendment. Strike out "$720" and insert "$864;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of furnace-keeper under the old Hall of the House of Representatives, $864. The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I understand the furnace-keeper under the House of Representatives does not get as much pay as the one under the Senate. I should like to know how that is. Our employés should receive as much as the employés of the Senate. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. We recommend non-concurrence in order to inquire in relation to the compensation of the employés of the two Houses. Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. We have a deficiency appropriation bill, which is the proper place for equalizing all those salaries. The amendment was non-concurred in. Fortieth amendment : Insert: "and Supreme Court room;" so the paragraph will read: For compensation of the person in charge of the heating apparatus of the Library of Congress and Supreme Court room, $1,000. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Insert: "Second Assistant Secretary of State and examiner of claims;" so it will read: Department of State: For compensation of the Secretary of State, Second Assistant Secretary of State, and examiner of claims, &c. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Does this authorize a Second Assistant Secretary of State? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The Committee on Appropriations refused to appropriate for this officer and this examiner of claims, but the Senate put it in. The committee did not think there was any necessity for this officer. The amendment was non-concurred in. Forty-second and forty-third amendments: Strike out "$57,380" and insert "$63,880," as the appropriation for the compensation of the employés of the State Department. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendments were concurred in. Add the following: Provided, That the third section of the act of August 18, 1856, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act requiring foreign regulations of commerce to be laid annually before Congress,' approved August 16, 1842, and for other purposes," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Forty-fifth amendment: Under the head of "Treasury Department" strike out "five" and insert "eleven;" so it will read, "cleven clerks of class four." The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Forty-sixth amendment: Strike out "eleven" and insert "twelve:" so that it will read, "twelve clerks of class three.' The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Strike out "six" and insert "fourteen;" so that it will read, "fourteen clerks of class two.' The committee recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Forty-eighth amendment: Strike out "six" and insert "fifteen;"so that it will read, "fifteen clerks of class one.' The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Forty-ninth amendment: Strike out "$66,004" and insert "$100,008." After the word "dollars" insert "for one chief clerk, $2,000." The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Fifty-first amendment: Strike out the words "declared to continue" and insert "continued;" so that it will read, "is hereby continued in force until July 1, 1869." The Committee on Appropriations recommend concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The next amendments from fifty-two to sixty-six, inclusive, are all of the same character; and the Committee on Appropriations recommend nonI hope there will be no objection to acting upon them in gross, according to the recommendation of the committee. They relate to the increase of clerks. concurrence. No objection being made, the following amendments, in which the Committee on Appropriations recommended non-concurrence, were considered in gross : Fifty-second amendment: Insert "six clerks of class four." Strike out the words "in all, $32,940," and insert the words "and for temporary clerks $9,000, in all, $52,700." Fifty-fourth amendment: Strike out "seven" and insert "twelve;" so as to read, "twelve clerks of class four." Fifty-fifth amendment: Sixty-second amendment: Strike out "seven" and insert" nine;"so as to read, 'nine clerks of class two." Sixty-third amendment: Strike out "$31,320" and insert "$42,700.” Sixty-fourth amendment: Str ke out "two" and insert "four:" so as to read, "four clerks of class four." Sixty-fifth amendment: Strike out "five" and insert "six;" so as to read, "six clerks of class two." Sixty-sixth amendment: Strike out $5,360" and insert "$9,360." In accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations, the foregoing amendments were non-concurred in. Sixty-seventh amendment: Sixty-eighth amendment: Insert the following: Also one clerk of class four, four clerks of class two, four clerks of class one, one copyist, and two laborers, to be employed as a temporary force. The committee recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The amendments from seventy to seventy-eight are all of a like character, and I hope they will be acted upon in gross. Mr. BLAINË. I desire to say that I hope the amendment No. 70 will be allowed to remain. There is an increase of expenses in the money-order office of the Post Office Department, and in the last year there has been a net revenue to the Government of $53,753. Money orders were given last year to the amount of $15,500,000. The number of money orders were eight thousand. Now, there is great necessity for an increase of clerks in conse quence of the large amount of business done in that branch, especially as that branch will pay for itself and a great deal more. Mr. SPALDING. I ask to have these amendments considered in their order. Mr. BLAINE. I move to concur in amendment No. 70. The CHAIRMAN. The committee have not reached that yet. Sixty-ninth amendment: Strike out "$49,920" and insert "$64,220." The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. In line four hundred and eighty-seven strike out the word "seven" and insert in lieu thereof "nine;" so that the clause will read: For compensation of the Auditor of the Treasury, for the Post Office Department, chief clerk, nine clerks of class four, (additional to one clerk of class four as disbursing clerk.) The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. In line four hundred and eighty-nine strike out twenty-four" and insert "forty;" so that the clause will read: Forty clerks of class three. The Committee on Appropriations recom mend non-concurrence. The amendment was non-concurred in. Strike out the words "four of them transferred from Third Auditor's office." The Committee on Appropriations recommend non-concurrence. Mr. MAYNARD. I dislike this mode of legislation. It cannot be that all these amendments are wrong. There ought to be some discrimination exercised. This mode of proceeding simply throws the whole legislation on matters of this kind into the hands of a committee of conference. That is the practical effect of it. It does seem to me that the Committee on Appropriations might be able to give us a reason why we should reject an amendment, or why we should not reject it. But a wholesale proceeding of this kind, and to bolster it up by telling us that the committee of conference can fix it, is a mode of disposing of it which I do not think is either very wise or very safe. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will state to the committee, for the satisfaction of the gentleman, exactly why many of these amendments were non-concurred in, while some of them, perhaps, would have been concurred in. They all refer to the number of clerks to be employed in the various branches of the Departments, and in order that the committee of conference might have the whole subject under their control so that they could allow some clerks to go in here and some to come out there and endeavor to arrange it for the best of the public service, after full discussion the committee unanimously came to the conclusion that it was best to non-concur in all, so that these matters could be arranged between the House and the Senate; otherwise the committee of conference would find themselves tied up by a concurrence in this amendment and a non-concurrence in others, and the necessary clerical force in the several Departments could not be adjusted. That is why we recommend what appears to be this wholesale non-concurrence which has attracted the attention of the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. BLAINE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word, and I do it for the purpose of saying a word in answer to the very sensible question of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD,] as I think, in reference to this particular paragraph, can give a more specific answer than was given by my friend from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER.] The Senate amended the paragraph in the manner that has been read, and the Committee on Appropriations non-concurred in their amendments in gross. I received from the Sixth Auditor of the Treasury some inquiries about this matter, and I gave him some memoranda, and this morning he addressed me a note, to be laid before the committee, in which he says: "From the tenor of your note to Mr. McGrew I fear there is still some misconception in reference to the Senate amendments relating to this office. We have asked for no increase of force, but simply that those clerks, twenty-six in number, that have been transferred from other offices and assigned to duty here, should be placed permanently upon our roll. So far from being an extra charge on the Treasury it is a positive reduction of expense to the extent of the whole twenty-six clerks, the business upon which they are engaged, the money-order system, producing a net income more than sufficient to defray the whole charge. In reference to this point, I beg to refer to the accompanying statement of Mr. Lynch, the very able clerk in charge of that branch." The following is the statement of Mr. Lynch : Whole number of orders issued in 1868. Whole number of orders issued in 1866.. Amount received for orders issued in 1868. Amount received for orders issued in 1866....... Increase....... Amount fees received in 1868. Amount fees received in 1866... Increase......... 803,846 243,709 560,137 $15,555,327 74 3,977,259 28 $11,578,068 4 Amount of expenses allowed in 1868......... Amount of expenses allowed in 1866... Increase Net revenue accrued in 1868........ Net revenue accrued in 1866....... Increase 068 46 $117.784 98 35,799 98 $81,985 00 $63,940 47 28,664 2 $35,276 20 $53,844 51 90 82 $53,753 69 So that this office a great deal more than pays for the salaries of the clerks necessary to carry it on, and all they wish is that the House shall concur with the Senate in making these clerks a part of their permanent working force. Mr. SPALDING. I cannot for the life of me see the force of the argument of the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. BLAINE.] Because the money-order service brings in a slight revenue into the postal department therefore you must increase the number of clerks. Mr. BLAINE. Not at all; no increase is asked for. Mr. SPALDING. That is the argument. Now there is an increase of deficiencies in other branches of the Post Office Department, and therefore this increase of revenue should go to make up for that deficiency as far as it goes. The only reason why these clerks are to be made permanent in this Auditor's office of the Post Office Department is that there is some additional profit, from year to year, as the business increases, upon the postal-order system; that is the whole argument. Now, if there be anything in that argument, then we must increase the number of clerks from day to day, from month to month, and from year to year, as the money increases that is received in the money-order branch of the service. Mr. ROSS. So as to use it up. Mr. SPALDING. So as to consume it all; that is the idea. Now, I see no earthly necessity for taking this amendment out of the or dinary course. Let it go with the rest to a committee of conference, to see if there is any necessity for this increase. That is the course we have decided to pursue in regard to the other bureaus of the Treasury, and I see no reason for any different course being pursued here. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment. Mr. BLAINE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last three words. I desire to say that the money-order system was put in operation without any clerical force to carry it out. They borrowed clerks from other bureaus. The system was an experiment; it was entered upon with a great deal of distrust. Being an experiment no permanent provision was made for it. It has grown to be a success. But up to this time it has been carried on with a sort of borrowed force, so to speak. This proposition is to provide the requisite force to carry on the system, as it has proved to be absolutely a source of revenue to the Government. It is merely proposed to provide the necessary clerks-and if the business continues to increase in future probably more will be necessary hereafter-to be paid out of the receipts of the bureau. Now, I care nothing at all whether the amendment of the Senate be concurred in or whether it be sent to the committee of conference. But as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] has so captiously explained my motion, I did desire that the grounds upon which I made it should be distinctly understood. Mr. PAINE. I would inquire of the gentleman if these borrowed clerks are paid under some other appropriation? If they are from some other bureau it is not impossible that in some other part of the bill there is an appropriation to cover them. Mr. BLAINE. We have cut down enormously in some other parts of the bill. Mr. PAINE. If the gentleman informs me that the appropriation for these clerks has been cut out from its proper place, so that they will not be paid upon the rolls of the bureau to which they properly belong, then there may be some propriety in making an appropriation for them in this place. But if it be true that they still stand on the rolls of the bureaus to which they properly belong, then it would hardly be proper for us to double the appropriation for their payment. I withdraw the amendment [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BLAINE. to the amendment. Mr. MAYNARD. I move to amend the amendment of the Senate, so as to increase the number of clerks by one. In my opinion the clerical force at present in the several Departments is numerically too great, but the clerical ability is not too great. If we had fewer in number of men, and more ability and capacity than a great many of them possess, and would pay them accordingly, my opinion is that the clerical service in the several Departments would be much better, and would be more efficiently performed than it is now. The condition in which this bill is presented leaves us no alternative but to accept the amendment of the Senate or to reject it as recommended by the Committee on Appropriations, and when the bill goes to a committee of conference let them dispose of it as they may think best under all the circumstances. As, however, we have frequently heretofore had the subject of clerical compensation before us when there was no opportunity to debate it, I take this occasion to say that I think it would be more just to the employés of the Government, as well as more conducive to the efficiency of the public service, if the number of clerks were reduced and their compensation increased. We should thereby get more work for the same amount of money, and the employés in the several Departments would be much better compensated than they are now. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH.] |