are necessarily given in New York city. Many -men in the interior obtain their butter, for example, for twenty, thirty, and forty cents a pound, and the farmer makes a profit by making it at fifteen cents a pound. We in New York are obliged to pay seventy and seventy-five cents a pound for it; and eggs, and everything else, are high in proportion. The rent of a house, respectable for a man intrusted with such a high office, would absorb fully one half of the salary we propose to give. Gentlemen must bear in mind that a new system of administration of the Government has been established since the war broke out. The sub-Treasury of New York has become a great national banking institution, and disburses directly or indirectly, in some form or other, by exchange or otherwise, $1,000,000,000 annually; and the Assistant Treasurer handles, in all probability, a far greater sum of money than would be necessary to carry on the pecuniary administration of this Government. We have voted today $3,700,000 for the mere printing of this money which the Assistant Treasurer of New York has more or less to handle. Our appropriations for the great Mint at Philadelphia are only $150,000 in this bill, while the appropriation for the paper money which runs through the hands more or less of the Assistant Treasurer of New York

pensation for the services which he is now rendering; but we do not see patriotic soldiers or civilians leaving the public service at such an hour because their compensation is too small. We do not see distinguished members of this House retiring because their compensation is inadequate. I trust, sir, that the House will to-day indicate, by rejecting this entire section, an indisposition to increase the salaries of civil officers.

Mr. MORRILL. The gentleman from Illinois has made a conclusive argument against the amendment which he says he will offer hereafter, and hence it is not necessary for me to refer to it. Mr. Chairman, "facts are stubborn things." We cannot resist the evidence that we have tried low salaries in some of these places and they have been found insufficient to accomplish the purposes of the Government. We know from actual experiment that the requisite ability and experience cannot be had in the city of New York for the salary that we have heretofore paid. In the face of this evidence I do not believe it wise on the part of the committee to go on and legislate so that we shall have no competent officers in these places. I believe in keeping the fountains pure at their

source.

Mr. BROOKS. There was an appropriation in the bill of over two million dollars, and the gentleman has offered an amendment which we have passed appropriating $1,100,000 more.

Mr. MORRILL. That includes the expense of adhesive stamps and other things.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, that is merely an incidental topic. I am desirous of sustaining the position taken by the gentleman from Vermont that this is hardly an adequate salary. I am quite sure the House cannot do better than vote this sum.

Mr. SPALDING. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

Mr. ARNOLD. I renew the amendment, so that my remarks may be in order. I hope the motion of the gentleman from lowa [Mr. WILSON] will prevail. I think we may as well meet this question of the increase of salaries and of compensation at once. If, however, that motion shall not prevail, I shall then move to insert the city of Chicago among these other places where the compensation is increased. I know that the person who discharges the duties of this office there receives only $1,400 compensation, and he is responsible for more than $100,000,000 per annum which passes through his hands. Of course the compensation is entirely inadequate, and the disparity between the value of the services rendered and the compensation given can be no greater in New York, or Boston, or Philadelphia, or anywhere in the United States. There is no officer under the Government who discharges as responsible duties, in my judgment, for such small compensation; and yet, in the present condition of the finances of the country, there is patriotism enough there to enable the Government to obtain a competent man to discharge the duties of that office at the present rate of compensation, and I believe there is patriotism enough everywhere to discharge the duties of these offices.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] refers to the large yearly incomes of gentlemen living in the city of New York, and he says there are plenty of men there who would be willing to take the office for the sake of the stealings of the office. I would like to know if there is not some patriotic wealthy man in New York who would take the office at such a time as this and discharge its duties for the compensation now allowed by law, and for the honor and distinction of serving the country at the present time. I believe that you can obtain at the present rate of compensation competent men to discharge the duties of all these offices, and that an increase of compensation is entirely unnecessary. It is not pretended that men in the employment of the Government are adequately paid in these times. There is scarcely a high officer in the Army or a man in high civil position, who is paid an adequate pecuniary com

is well known that the sub-Treasurer at New York has a large force under his command and is made responsible for them. Some days they have to receive and pay out not less than $20,000,000 in a single day. To be sure, a large portion of this is in paper. But on some days it is very large, amounting to millions in absolute coin. If one of his clerks take a counterfeit note, or a spurious coin, the sub-Treasurer alone is responsible. It is a very difficult matter to carry on operations of such a gigantic nature, and to have them always come out without the loss of a dollar.

Under these circumstances I trust that the House will act with its usual judgment. It is a separate and distinct question from that of raising salaries generally; and I am glad to see so much evidence on the part of members that we will rather undertake to improve the currency and make it more valuable to the men who have salaries, and to our officers and soldiers in the field, than to go upon the principle of a general increase of salaries throughout the country.

Mr. ARNOLD. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I move a pro forma amendment in order that I may say why I shall vote for the proposal of the Committee of Ways and Means. In the first place it is my habit to follow that committee with only about half an eye open; and in this particular case my eyes have been opened wide by the debate that has sprung up on the proposition. I am opposed to any increase of salaries that have heretofore been fixed at a proper rate for the services performed, where that increase is asked because of the depreciation of the currency or the increase of the nominal value of articles. I thought at the last session, and I think now, that the remedy for the evil is in remedying the currency and not in increasing salaries. I will vote for any measure that tends to reduce the volume of the currency and thereby add to its value; but I shall not vote to increase any salary merely because it is insufficient by reason of the depreciation of the currency.

Mr. WILSON. Will the gentleman from Maryland permit me to make a remark here?

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Certainly. Mr. WILSON. The gentleman will be inconsistent with this section of the bill, because it is provided that the increased compensation authorized shall not continue in force for more than two years from the 4th of March next. I presume the Committee of Ways and Means expects to return to specie payments before then.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Or the Committee of Ways and Means may suppose that the war will be ended and the extraordinary expenses of the Government reduced within such a volume as that less compensation will procure adequate business talent to perform the duties. One hypothesis is as legitimate as the other; and either is only hypothesis. The reason for the increase asked here is this: you must have business men to transact the business of the Government. The patriotism of the people may very well be called

upon in every legitimate form to support the Government; but you do not anywhere else rely on the patriotism of the people to fill the offices of the Government. If you are to transact business you must have business capacity, and pay for it at business rates. Now, the amount of business cast on this particular officer has no just proportion to the compensation paid him in comparison with the salaries paid for like services in the ordinary business of the country. This is not the increase of an inadequate salary, become inadequate because of the depreciation of the currency, but it is the increase of a salary inadequate on its original basis, and therefore requiring to be increased.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the proposition of the Committee of Ways and Means. In my judgment a responsible officer will save a thousand-fold his salary every year, whereas an incompetent man, by mere errors, bungling, and stupidity, to say nothing of possible cheating, will cost the Government ten times his salary every year. I withdraw my amend

ment.

The amendment of Mr. WILSON, to strike out the second section, was not agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 43, noes 51.

Mr. WILSON. I will not call for tellers on this question, if it be understood that we shall have an opportunity to take a vote on the question in the House.

Mr. MORRILL. I shall have no objection to that, because I shall move to reinsert the section as it was originally, except in one particular, and that will give the gentleman the opportunity he desires.

Mr. ARNOLD. I now move to amend by inserting, "the salary of the Assistant Treasurer at Chicago shall be $4,000." The salary of that officer is now $1,400. I ask the gentleman from Vermont to give his assent to this amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. I cannot give such assent. There has been no action of the committee on this subject.

Mr. ARNOLD. An increase of this salary was repeatedly recommended by the late Secretary of the Treasury. I could, were it necessary, have read to the House a communication from the late Secretary of the Treasury recommending an increase of this salary. There is no case any where of such inadequacy of salary with reference to the amount of labor and the responsibility. This office was created and the salary fixed when Chicago was a village of five or ten thousand inhabitants, with no considerable commerce. It has now grown to be one of the largest cities in the Union, and this officer at that point now has the responsibility of receiving and paying out hundreds of millions of dollars per annum. Because he has not been persistently demanding an increase of salary certainly he should not be made the victim of an unjust discrimination, when an increase of compensation is given to the Assistant Treasurers at New York, Boston, and St. Louis. I say with the utmost confidence that in no one of the cities where the salary is increased is there so great a disparity between the labor and the responsibility on the one hand and the salary on the other, as there is in the case of this officer in the city of Chicago. He has not been dogging the heels of the Committee of Ways and Means, urging an increase of his pay; but if an increase should be made anywhere, it should certainly be made in the case of this most meritorious officer, who has not been persistent in demanding an increase, but has faithfully attended to the discharge of his duties. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be adopted.

Mr. MILLER, of New York. Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. ARNOLD,] and I hope that the House will hereafter adopt the proposition of the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. WILSON,] to strike out the whole section.

Mr. ARNOLD. If this amendment be adopted I will cheerfully vote with the gentleman to strike out the whole section.

Mr. MILLER, of New York. I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot see why the argument pressed by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS,] will not apply to every other case in which we are asked to increase salaries. Have not the labors of every head of a Department or bureau increased during this war? Have not the

labors of every civil officer increased? These officers are all asking, with one accord, for an increase of salary. If we allow an increase in this instance we must of necessity allow it in every other. This matter does not involve simply the increase of $2,000 asked in this case; it involves the question whether we shall add millions of dollars to the expenses of the Government by increasing the salaries of all our public officers. For if we adopt the increase in one case it will be brought forward as a precedent for an increase in numerous other cases-a precedent the force of which we cannot consistently deny.

I am not surprised, as some gentlemen appear to be, that, in our efforts to check the increase of expenditures we do not get assistance from gentlemen on the other side of the House. We all understand that when the slavery question shall be removed from our discussions the questions attracting the public attention will be chiefly of a financial nature. We are going to be met with the cry of "economy in our expenditures." We cannot expect gentlemen on that side of the House to stay our course when we are rushing on this rock of extravagance. I do not expect it; and I am not surprised to find that gentlemen on that side of the House are willing to assist members on this side to increase salaries. I expect that in a few days there will come from that side of the House a proposition to increase the pay of our soldiers and our sailors; and it is to be seen how that proposition will be met. When I have been appealed to by clerks from my own district to vote for an increase of salaries, I have said to them, "I cannot do it;" and I have told them, "There are three or four thousand patriotic men from my district, who are not only serving their country, but facing their country's enemies; and the salaries of these men should be increased first; but I do not believe that the situation of our Treasury will allow even that." And can we resist that when we vote for this increase? Not at all. Men who are holding office under the Government are suffering as men are suffering who are living upon salaries all over the country; no more and no less.

Everybody in this time is living economically. Everybody at this time is suffering from the increased price of everything throughout the country. Everybody is suffering from the increased cost of living. And when men are patriotically bearing the expenses of taxation and patriotically living upon small salaries all over the country, is it a time to increase the salaries of the employés of the Government? I know that these men when they are applicants for office profess a great deal of patriotism, and I think that they can bear the present salary when they have tried so hard to get the places in the first instance. I shall vote against any increase of salary; but I will say the first increase I can be induced to vote for is when gentlemen on the other side shall propose to increase the pay of our officers and soldiers and sailors.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. KERNAN. I move to amend the amendment by making it $3,500, in order to say a few words. I am a good deal surprised that my colleague from New York, whose remarks were made apparently with a view to an effect elsewhere, should, in view of the enormous expenditures which have been made of the public money, rise in his place here and charge that it is because we on this side of the House will not help them on that side to do what is right. I am a very young member upon this floor, but I remember one occasion when we on this side of the House endeavored to oppose some measure-it was the measure which afterward failed in the other House-I mean the confiscation bill-and its failure showed that we were right although it was forced through this House by members on the other side. On that occasion, sir, we were told, and I will give substantially what was said, that we on this side had better confine ourselves to our legitimate business, the business for which we were sent here, of embarrassing and opposing, as the people trusted, that side of the House. And the House will remember that they said that they would take care of the Government which had been intrusted to them. We on this side have submitted on all occasions. What did we find to be the case? That it was fatal, almost, to any measure to have it come from this side of the House.

We were not able to get anything through. What then, Mr. Chairman, were we to do? We were told by members on that side that this was not the time for economy when we proposed to reduce appropriations, that seemed too large. All we could do then was, when members on that side endeavored to cut down what we believed to be larger expenditures than were necessary, to help them, as we were not allowed any chance of success if we proposed to do so ourselves.

The gentleman from New York says that he would ask what encouragement we had given. Why, sir, at this very Congress there has been an appropriation of $108,000 for furniture for the Treasury building; and yet the other day, when I endeavored to strike out $15,000 of that amount in order to show the disapproval of Congress of such extravagant expenditures, I could scarcely raise a friend to support me except on my own side of the House.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. How many members on the gentleman's side of the House voted with him?

Mr. KERNAN. I believe that they all voted with me, and that that side voted the other way. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. No, sir; I voted with the gentleman.

Mr. KERNAN. I give the gentleman credit; and I am glad to know there are men on that side who vote with us against extravagant expenditures. But I do not want the insinuation to go out, as it is an unjust one, that we would not help them, and were therefore responsible. I have remained here during the action on this long bill, and have voted on all occasions for the reduction of extravagant appropriations; and this side has voted in the same way.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MORRILL. As I believe this debate is wandering from the bill, I move that the committee rise for the purpose of terminating the debate upon the whole bill, unless unanimous consent be given to take the question.

Mr. KERNAN. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HOLMAN. I desire to offer an amend ment to this section.

Mr. HOLMAN. I want to explain it.
Mr. MORRILL. I insist upon my motion.
The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the special order, being House bill No. 649, making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866, and had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that all debate upon the special order in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union be terminated in two minutes after the committee resumes the consideration thereof.

Mr. HOLMAN. I suggest that the gentleman makes it ten minutes.

Mr. MORRILL. I will modify my motion according to that suggestion.

The motion was agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OVER

Mr. STILES. I move that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet on Monday next. The motion was not agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. MORRILL. I move that the rules be suspended, and that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. DAWES in the chair,) and resumed, as a special order, the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 649) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th of June, 1866; the question being on the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. ARNOLD.]

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to amend the amendment of my colleague by reducing the amount to $3,500. I do this not merely for the

purpose of opposing the amendment of my colleague, for if any of these gentlemen are entitled to have their compensation increased, this officer at Chicago is as much entitled to it as any of them, but it seems that he has not been sufficiently in the ring to get into this combination for increasing salaries. But what I more particularly desired to say is that it does seem to me that this attempt to increase the salaries of these high officers is most impudent and atrocious.

Mr. THAYER. The gentleman talks about rings being formed for raising salaries, and pronounces the effort impudent and atrocious. Now, as one of the gentlemen who is to be affected by this proposed increase of salaries is a resident of my district, I desire to know whether the gentleman has any reason for supposing that he is in the ring.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. He is certainly in the ring of this section, which rings of an increase of salaries.

Mr. THAYER. Then the gentleman does not mean to impute anything improper by his language.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. No, sir; not at all. I do not propose to indulge in any attack upon the character of these men; but I do repeat that I think the commencement of increasing salaries at this end of the route, beginning with hign officers, is a most impudent and atrocious thing. There are some branches of our Army that have not been paid for nearly six months. A few days ago I received a letter from an officer in command at New Orleans, in which he informed me that the paymaster had not been there for nearly six months. Here are soldiers drawing only sixteen dollars a month, and exposing their lives to danger and death, and no complaint comes from this Committee of Ways and Means that they are not receiving enough; there is no proposition to increase their pay. But when these men who, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] says, have an income of $1,000,000 a year, come and ask for an increase of their salaries, behold they must have it.

Why, sir, if these gentlemen in New York who are demanding an increase of their salaries have an income of $1,000,000 a year, it seems to me they are engaged in a very small business in demanding of us an increase of one, two, or three thousand dollars a year. Why, I am astonished at the declaration which has been made here that you cannot get competent men to fill these offices unless you increase the compensation. Who has ever resigned? When, sir, has there been more than one instance under this Administration of an officer resigning because of the inadequacy of his salary? Not at all. The men who deserve an increase of salary are the men who cannot resign, who are mustered into the service, and who if they attempt to resign are put under arrest; they are the poor men, the men who are exposing their lives every day, and what will not a man give in exchange for his life?

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HOLMAN. I very cordially concur in the views expressed by the gentleman from Illinois, while I am not in favor of his amendment. We upon this side of the House shall be very happy to cooperate with him in behalf of justice to a class of persons who cannot get out of the ser

vice.

But in connection with this subject I desire to bring to the attention of the House a proposition which will accomplish a great act of justice on the part of this House; and I am happy to believe that the ruling of the Chair will enable that proposition to come before the House as a contingency for carrying on a Department of the Government. I ask that my amendment may be read. It is in the nature of a limitation upon this appropriation. The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: Add to section two the following:

And provided further, That the appropriation made by this act shall be on the condition that every private soldier who shall have enlisted in any regiment or battery previously organized, with the distinct assurance given at the time of the enlistinent by the recruiting officer, or by the Governor of the State where the enlistment was made, that he should be mustered out of service with the regiment or battery in which he enlisted, shall, upon his application, be mustered out of the service with such regiment or battery, in accordance with such assurance; or if the regiment or battery shall have been mustered out such soldier shall be forthwith discharged, anything in the mustering-in roll of such soldier to the contrary notwithstanding; and the Secretary of War shall, subject to the approval of the Pres

ident of the United States, adopt the proper rules as to proofs of such enlistment necessary to carry this provision into effect.

Mr. MORRILL. I cannot raise a point of order upon that amendment. I presume the gentleman having got in his Buncombe speech, does not care to press it.

Mr. HOLMAN. I do care a great deal about it. Mr. MORRILL. I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, and is independent legislation.

Mr. HOLMAN. It is a limitation upon the appropriation, and provides for one of the Departments of the Government that comes within the ruling of the Chair already made.

The CHAIRMAN. point of order.

The Chair sustains the

Mr. HOLMAN. I must appeal from that decision of the Chair most respectfully. The amendment certainly comes within the ruling made by the Chair since this bill has been under consideration.

The question was taken on the appeal, and the decision of the Chair was sustained as the judgment of the committee.

Mr. SCHENCK. Is there any time remaining for debate?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks there is about one minute left.

Several MEMBERS. Two minutes.

Mr. SCHENCK. As I propose to vote in favor of the amendment to strike out this whole provision, I desire to explain in a few words why 1 shall do so.

I believe that such is the condition of the currency of the country, such the embarrassments of the Treasury, and such the necessity for the appropriation of our means to the carrying on of this war, that in the present state of affairs, however meritorious the application, we cannot increase generally the salaries of the officers of the Government throughout the country. I believe that there are very few of the present officers of the Government, civil or military, who are not compelled to be exceedingly frugal to live at all within the means that we give them for that purpose; but if we commence at all, we must go through with the whole list; and I am very unwilling to commence with gentlemen who are receiving comparatively large salaries, however inadequate they may be, who by living a little more closely to the wind, a little more frugally, can manage to get on, if at the same time we deny an increase to the clerks here and the lieutenants and others in the Army who cannot possibly live upon the means that we furnish them.

[Here the hammer fell, the time allowed by the resolution of the House for debate on the bill having expired.]

Mr. ARNOLD. I will accept the amendment of my colleague, establishing the salary of the sub-Treasurer at Chicago at $3,500.

The question was taken on Mr. ARNOLD'S amendment as modified, and it was rejected.

Mr. MORRILL. I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill to the House. . The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. DAWES reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had, as a special order, had under consideration House bill No. 649, making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866, and had directed him to report the same back to the House with sundry amendments.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED.

Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the gentleman from Vermont to give way to me a moment.

Mr. MORRILL. Certainly.

Mr. SCHENCK. Joint resolutions giving the thanks of Congress to General Terry and Admiral Porter have just arrived from the Senate. I move that they be taken from the Speaker's table, and referred respectively to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Committee on Naval Affairs.

There being no objection, joint resolution (S. No. 98) to present the thanks of Congress to Major General Alfred H. Terry and the officers and men under his command, and joint resolution (S. No. 99) tendering the thanks of Congress to Rear Admiral David D. Porter, and to the officers,

petty officers, seamen, and marines under his command for their gallantry and good conduct in the recent capture of Fort Fisher, were taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred: the former to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and the latter to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

but to make it what it ought to be, considering the vast amount of business that is done at that office.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the compensation of the Treasurer of the United States be, and the same is hereby, fixed at $6,000 per annum; the compensation of the Assistant Treasurer at New York at $6,000 per annum, and the salaries of the Assistant Treasurers at Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis at $5,000 per annum cach, to commence from the 4th day of March next; and the amount necessary to pay the same for the current and next fiscal year be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Pro

vided, That the increased compensation authorized by this

section shall continue in force for two years from the 4th day of March next, and no longer.

And to insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the compensation of the Treasurer of the United States be, and the same is hereby, fixed at $6,000 per annum; the compensation of the Assistant Treasurer at New York at $7,000 per annum; and the salaries of the Assistant Treasurers at Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis, at $5,000 per annum each, to commence from the 4th day of March next; and the amount necessary to pay the same for the current and next fiscal year be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That the increased compensation authorized by this section shall continue in force for two years from the 4th day of March next, and no longer: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as increasing the annual compensation of the Treasurer of the Mint, ex officio Assistant Treasurer of the United States at Philadelphia, beyond $5,000 for his services as Treasurer of the Mint and as Assistant Treasurer.

Mr. WILSON. I hope that substitute will be allowed to go in without a contest, and then the House can take a vote on striking out the whole section.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the substitute being incorporated in the bill as the original text?

Mr. HOLMAN. I object.

Mr. MORRILL. The section is modified in the last proviso, in order that the Assistant Treasurer at Philadelphia shall not from any construction of the law receive a double salary.

Mr. ARNOLD. Will the gentleman from Vermont modify it by inserting a provision for the Assistant Treasurer at Chicago?

Mr. MORRILL. I would be glad to do so, but I am not at liberty, as I am acting under the direction of the Committee of Ways and Means. Besides I do not see that we would gain anything by it, for the gentleman from Illinois has already announced that he will vote against it, whether that is on or out.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The gentleman from Vermont agreed that if his substitute was accepted we should have a vote on striking out the section as amended. By that means those who are opposed to this increase of salaries would get the opportunity they desire, and we would save a good deal of time.

Mr. HOLMAN. The objection to that is that in the section as amended by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the salary of the Assistant Treasurer at New York is fixed at $6,000, whereas the substitute fixes it at $7,000. If the House were not to strike out the section as it now is, that salary would remain at $6,000; but if the substitute of the gentleman from Vermont were allowed to be incorporated as the original text, and were not to be stricken out, that salary would be $7,000.

Mr. GARFIELD. Thope that the amendment in relation to dry plate printing in the Treasury Department will not be adopted by the House. I will not enter into an argument of the case, but I will simply state a few facts. It has been stated here that vast sums of money are being expended in the Treasury Department for an experimentan experiment which has been a failure. Now, vestigating committee last fall; and on page 360 is a letter from the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Chase, in regard to the cost of printing money under that system, and, indeed, in regard to the whole cost of printing in the Treasury Department. That letter of the Secretary of the Treasury and other documents show conclusively that the cost of this printing is more than one hundred per cent. more when done by bank-note companies than when done in the Treasury Department.

Mr. WILSON. I desire to ask the gentleman whether, in the statement submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, the entire cost of printing is not included, whereas the amendment to which the gentlemen refers relates only to the experiment with the hydrostatic press.

Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly. If the gentleman had waited, I should have come to that.

Now, sir, the cost of printing in the Treasury Department, as given in these tables, includes the entire outlay for hydrostatic presses. The expense of large and heavy machines, now thrown aside as worthless, is included in the cost. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the cost of printing is not so great, by one to three hundred per cent., as it was when done under contract by the bank-note companies of New York.

In regard to the dry plate printing, to which the gentleman has referred, the committee did report that the machinery was very heavy and expensive, that the experiment had not yet been completed, and that they could not recommend the system on the score of economy. It seemed to us to be an expensive experiment and one of doubtful success. But since that time the experiment has proved highly successful. I think there can scarcely be found an instance of so marked a success in any branch of mechanical ingenuity as this experiment in dry plate printing. If the gentleman will visit the Treasury Department he will find that printing is there executed far faster by this method than by the old method; and not only faster, but far better. The printing is executed in such a way as to afford almost an absolute security against counterfeiting. Within the past few months one of the most accomplished engineers of England has visited the printing establishment of the Treasury Department, and he declares the printing machinery now in use there to be a master-piece of skill in mechanics. And I am informed to-day by a gentleman on this floor that Professor Agassiz, who has witnessed the operation of that machinery within the past week, pronounces it one of the wonders of the ageone of the marvels of mechanical science.

These facts, which have come to light since the committee made their report, constitute, I think, a triumphant vindication of the genius of the man who has perfected this mechanism, whatever may be said against his personal character. I hope that these facts will convince the House of the impropriety of retaining an amendment which would throw a reflection upon the whole system.

Mr. PRICE. As the gentleman was a member of the committee charged with the investigation in reference to the printing of bills, I wish to ask him what is the cost per thousand for printing? Mr. GARFIELD. I will read from the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, which I hold in my hand:

The cost per $1,000 of five-cent fractional currency"Mr. PRICE. That is not the question. I wish to know the cost per thousand of printing the bank bills?

Mr. GARFIELD. The cost of printing the bank bills has nothing to do with dry plate printing. I beg to remind the gentleman that I am speaking on the subject of dry plate printing, and the fractional currency is the only kind of currency

Mr. PRICE. The question under consideration involves the printing of the bank bills as well as the fractional currency.

Mr. GARFIELD. It does not. Dry plate printing is used only in producing fractional currency. It has, therefore, nothing to do with bank bills. Dry plate printing is what is now under consideration.

Mr. PRICE. I repeat the question-the gentleman has been on the committee and can answer it-what is the cost of printing bank bills per thousand impressions?

Mr. GARFIELD. I can tell the gentleman, but that is not germane to the subject under consideration at all. I will tell the gentleman after awhile.

Mr. PRICE. I prefer to have my question answered now.

Mr. GARFIELD. And I prefer, as I am upon the floor, to consider the question pertinently and in my own way.

I ask the attention of the House to what I shall read from a letter of the Secretary of the Treasury:

"The cost per $1,000 of five-cent fractional currency has been $24 59; postage currency, $58 77. The cost per $1,000 of ten-cent fractional currency has been $12 291; postage currency, $29 38. The cost per $1,000 of twenty-five-cent fractional currency has been $6 143; postage currency, $14 69. The cost per $1,000 of fifty-cent fractional currency has been $3 031; postage currency, $7 311.

"The whole amount of postage currency furnished by the bank-note companies has been $20,192,956; the number of impressions 6,680,364, and their cost $393,548 99. The whole amount of fractional currency furnished in the Department to the 2d day of June, 1864, was $6,934,691; the number of impressions, 1,661,856, and their cost, $50,930 10. "A production corresponding in face, value, and numbers, with that of the bank-note companies would cost in the Department, as nearly as can be estimated, $158,571 89.”

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman to answer the question whether it did not cost over $300,000 to print $312,000 under this experiment?

I expect that the first

Mr. GARFIELD. sheet of the postage currency cost $200,000, provided they had only printed that single sheet. It would have cost that amount if they had printed only one sheet and had charged to that sheet all the expense of getting up the necessary machinery. It would indeed be a costly sheet that on its face was worth only two dollars and would cost the Government nearly a quarter of a million of dollars. But, sir, that is not the way to estimate the cost of printing.

Mr. DAWES. I ask the gentleman from Ohio whether he approves of an arrangement by which the head of a bureau who makes the contract is permitted to be a part owner of the patent under which the printing is done?

Mr. GARFIELD. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that any such arrangement had been made. If there is any such arrangement I most certainly do not approve of it. Mr. DAWES. Does it not appear in the report of the committee of investigation?

Mr. GARFIELD. There was nothing in the report concerning the patent.

Mr. DAWES. I do not speak so much of the report as the evidence taken before the committee. Mr. GARFIELD. That is not involved in this case.

Mr. DAWES. I thought the gentleman had his own opinion on the subject.

Mr. GARFIELD. I have given my opinion. Mr. DAWES. What is the gentleman's opinon the I that head of bureau who makes the contract for printing is a part owner of the patent for the new kind of paper on which it is done.

Mr. GARFIELD. If that statement is true it does not seem to me to be a proper arrangement. But that is not the question before the House. I am ready at any time to be led into a general debate concerning this whole report. The subject before the House is, shall we condemn in this bill the new mode of printing our public securities? Shall we condemn it here and now?

Mr. DAWES. I say that it is pertinent to the gentleman's argument that we shall limit this appropriation, and stop the application of the money of the Treasury to experiments to be made under the superintendence of the head of the bureau, so long as he acts in the double capacity of making the contract and owning the patent about which the contract is made.

Mr. MORRILL. I can yield no further for this discussion. I ask unanimous consent to make a correction.

Mr. ROSS. I object.

When the proposition was adopted by which the binding of the Congressional Globe was transferred to the Globe office, I moved a larger deduction than should have been made. I want now to make the proper deduction of $18,600, so as to leave the appropriation $55,111 24; and on that amendment, and the bill and amendments, I call the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put; and under the operation thereof all the amendments recommended by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, together with those offered in the House, were agreed to, with the exception of those indicated below.

Second amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole:

On page 6, line one hundred and eleven, insert after the appropriation for the Congressional Globe the words: And to pay the publishers for binding the same, $18,800. Mr. A. W. CLARK. Debate is not in order strictly, but I ask unanimous consent to make a remark or two.

Leave was granted.

Mr. A. W.CLARK. That appropriation, under a misapprehension of facts, was made greater in amount than was necessary. That amount of appropriation covers both the printing and binding. The Superintendent of Public Printing called upon me and stated that the appropriation was very much larger than was necessary to do the work at the Government printing office. The attention of the proprietors of the Globe was called to the matter, and they informed me that the $48,800 covers the whole expense of printing and binding. The Public Printer desired me to state to the House that the expense of binding at the Government office was ninety cents a volume; and I find by taking these figures that the binding, as proposed at the Globe office, would cost perhaps one dollar a volume. The Public Printer also informs me that the facilities for binding in his office are entirely adequate to all the wants of the Government. He asks, therefore, that the binding should be retained where it is now, and that this amount should not be deducted from the item of the bill making appropriation for binding public documents.

Mr. MORRILL. This amendment was introduced into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union with a statement that the Government printing office was utterly unable to bind and deliver this work in proper season; that the volumes have been withheld ever since last session from members, and that they have not yet received them. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY] stated that the proprietors of the Globe were willing to bind these volumes for the same price that it cost at the Government office, and that they would deliver the work in ninety days after the close of each session. I have already offered an amendment diminishing the amount appropriated for binding public documents by only $18,600, instead of $48,600.

Mr. NOBLE. I will remark that I made the statement that the Globe proprietors would do the work for the same price that it cost at the Government office, and that they would deliver the work in ninety days after the close of each session, and

I

The

Mr. A. W. CLARK. In reply to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] I will state that the cost at the Government office is ninety cents per volume; and that the Globe people propose to do it at the same price. They authorized me to make that statement to the House. Public Printer is now delivering the entire set to the House. He has forwarded the binding with all his energy, and he says his facilities for binding are greater than that of any other establishment, and asks that the work may remain where it is now. One argument used upon the part of the Globe office is the safe delivery of the Globes. The printing office is now held responsible for The work has been done well, and as promptly as it could have been done by any other binding establishment in this city.

the same.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. MORRILL. As this first amendment fails the other amendment on the same subject ought to fall with it. I will withdraw my amendment to diminish the sum appropriated for public printing by the amount of $18,600, if there be no ob

There was no objection, and the amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment recommended by the Committee of the Whole, to diminish the amount appropriated for public binding by $48,600, was also disagreed to.

Sixteenth amendment:

Strike out section two, as follows:

And be it further enacted, That the compensation of the Treasurer of the United States be, and the same is hereby, fixed at $6,000 per annum; the compensation of the Assistant Treasurer at New York at $6,000 per annum, and the salaries of the Assistant Treasurers at Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis, at $5,000 per annum each, to commence from the 4th day of March next; and the amount necessary to pay the same for the current and next fiscal year be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That the increased compensation authorized by this section shall continue in force for two years from the 4th day of March next, and no longer.

And insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the compensation of the Treasurer of the United States be, and the same is hereby, fixed at $6.000 per annum; the compensation of the Assistant Treasurer at New York at $7,000 per annum, and the salaries of the Assistant Treasurers at Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis, at $5,000 per annum each, to commence from the 4th day of March next; and the amount necessary to pay the same for the current and next fiscal year be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That the increased compensation authorized by this section shall continue in force for two years from the 4th day of March next, and no longer: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as increasing the annual compensation of the treasurer of the Mint, er officio Assistant Treasurer of the United States at Philadelphia, beyond $5,000 for his services as treasurer of the Mint and as Assistant Treasurer.

Mr. MORRILL. I demand the yeas and nays upon that amendment.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment was not agreed to. The next question recurred upon striking out the second section, as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the compensation of the Treasurer of the United States be, and the same is hereby, fixed at $6,000 per annum; the compensation of the Assistant Treasurer at New York at $6,000 per annum, and the salaries of the Assistant Treasurers at Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis at $5,000 per annum each, to commence from the 4th day of March next; and the amount necessary to pay the same for the current and next fiscal year be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That the increased compensation authorized by this section shall continue in force for two years from the 4th day of March next, and no longer.

Mr. WILSON demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 78, nays 39, not voting 65; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Arnold, Ashley, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, William G. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cobb, Cole, Cox, Cravens, Dawes, Dawson, Denison, Dixon, Eckley, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Hólman, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard. Ingersoll, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Lazear, Le Blond, Loan, Long, Mallory, Marey, McClurg, Mc Dowell, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Amos Myers, Noble, Norton, Orth, Perham, Perry, Price, Samuel J. Randall, William II. Randall, Edward II. Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Sloan, Spalding, William G. Steele,. Stiles, Stronse, Sweat, Townsend, Tracy, Wadsworth, Ehhu B.. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Wheeler, Williams, Wilson, Windom, and Yeaman-78.

NAYS-Messrs. Beaman, Blow, Brooks, Ambrose W. Clark, Coffroth, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Deming, Driggs, Eliot, Frank, Garfield, fall, Hotchkiss, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Knox, Littlejohn, Longyear, McAllister, McBride, Moorhead, Morrill, James R. Morris, Leonard Myers, Charles O'Neill, Pike, Alexander II. Rice, Jolin H. Rice, Scott, Shannon, Smithers, Stuart, Thayer, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, and Wilder-39. NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Anderson, Baily, Blair, Bliss, Brandegee, James S. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Thomas T. Davis, Donnelly, Dumont, Eden, Edgerton, English, Farnsworth, Grider, Griswold, Harding, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Hooper, Hulburd, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kanfleisch, Kasson, King, Knapp, Law, Marvin, McIndoe, McKinney, William H. Miller, Daniel Morris, Morrisor, Nelson, Odell, John O'Neill, Patterson, Pendleton, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Smith, Starr, John B. Steele, Stevens, Thomas, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Whaley, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, and Worthington-65.

So the second section of the bill was struck out.
Pending the roll-call,

Mr. COBB stated that his colleague, Mr. Mc-
INDOE, was confined to his room by illness.
Mr. FARNSWORTH stated that he was paired
off with Mr. STEVENS.

Mr. A. W. CLARK stated that his colleague,

Mr. HULBURD, had been called home by sickness in his family.

The vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. ARNOLD moved to reconsider the vote by which the second section of the bill was struck out; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. MORRILL moved the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; and under the operation of the previous question the bill was passed.

Mr. MORRILL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR. Mr. DEMING. I ask unanimous consent to have taken from the Speaker's table and referred the bill of the Senate authorizing the President to appoint a Second Assistant Secretary of War. There being no objection, an act (S. No. 385) authorizing the President to appoint a Second Assistant Secretary of War, was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

GUNBOATS ON THE LAKES.

Mr. COX. I ask unanimous consent to have taken from the Speaker's table and referred the joint resolution of the Senate terminating the treaty as to gunboats on the lakes.

There being no objection, the joint resolution referred to was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

PROPOSITION TO ADJOURn over.

Mr. HOLMAN. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MORRIS, of Ohio. I move that when the House adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

The question was taken, and the motion was not agreed to.

RAILROAD GRANTS IN MINNESOTA.

Mr. WINDOM. I ask unanimous consent to introduce for reference a bill extending the time for the completion of certain land-grant railroads in Minnesota, and for other purposes. Objection was made.

Mr. HOLMAN. I now insist on my motion to adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon, (at twenty-five minutes past four, p. m.,) the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 20, 1865.

The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. H. CHANNING. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

CANCELING POSTAGE STAMPS.

The SPEAKER, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Postmaster General on the subject of a patent for canceling and marking the stamps used by the Post Office Department; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. FORNEY, their Secretary, informed the House that the Senate had passed an act (S. No. 212) for the relief of Henry A. Brigham, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

TRADE WITH CANADA.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of December 20, 1864, a report of what goods have been permitted to pass from the United States through Canada and again into the United States, &c.; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

BURSTING OF NAVAL GUNS.

The SPEAKER also, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a communication from the

Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 5th instant, a report in regard to the bursting of guns on board the vessels of the United States fleet in the bombardment of Fort Fisher; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

THANKS FOR THE CAPTURE OF FORT FISHER.

Mr. SCHENCK, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee on Military Affairs, with an amendment, joint resolution (S. R. No. 98) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Alfred H. Terry, and the officers and men under his command, for their gallantry and good conduct in the recent capture of Fort Fisher. On motion of Mr. SCHENCK, the House proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution; which was read, as follows:

Resolved, That the thanks of Congress are hereby presented to Major General Alfred H. Terry, and to the officers and men under his command, for the unsurpassed gallantry and skill exhibited by them in the attack upon Fort Fisher, and the brilliant and decisive victory by which that important work has been captured from the rebel forces and placed in the possession and under the authority of the United States, and for their long and faithful service and unwavering devotion to the cause of the country in the midst of the greatest difficulties and dangers.

And be it further resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, requested to communicate this resolution to Major General Terry, and through him to the officers and soldiers under his command.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Military Affairs was to insert in the fourth line, before the word "major," the word "brevet." The amendment was agreed to.

The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time. It was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move to amend the title by inserting before the word "major" the word "brevet."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT TILL MONDAY.

Mr. SCHENCK. Imove that when the House adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Monday

next.

Mr. STEVENS. I hope the gentleman will not press that motion at this time.

Mr. SCHENCK. I withdraw the motion for the present.

THANKS OF CONGRESS TO GENERAL THOMAS. Mr. GARFIELD, by unanimous consent, re-. ported back from the Committee on Military Affairs a joint resolution expressive of the thanks of the American people to Major General George H. Thomas and the army under his command, with an amendment in the form of a substitute.

On motion of Mr. GARFIELD, the House proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution; which was read, as follows:

Resolved, That the thanks of the American people are eminently due, and are hereby tendered, to General Thomas and the army under his command for their brilliant courage and endurance, which resulted in the defeat of the rebel army under Hood, and the expulsion of the enemy from the State of Tennessee.

The amendment proposed by the, Committee on Military Affairs was to strike out all after the word "resolved," and insert the following:

That the thanks of Congress are due, and are hereby tendered, to Major General George H. Thomas, and the officers and soldiers under his command, for their skill and dauntless courage, by which the rebel army under General Hood was signally defeated and driven from the State of Ten

nessee.

The amendment was adopted.

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

Mr. GARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

EXCUSED FROM COMMITTEE SERVICE. Mr. J. C. ALLEN. I learn from the reading of the Journal this morning that the Speaker has

appointed me a member of the special committee charged with the duty of investigating certain charges against a member of the House. I feel it my duty to ask to be excused from service on that committee. I do not believe it will be possible for me to devote to the matter that attention which will probably be necessary.

There was no objection; and Mr. ALLEN was excused.

MERCHANTS' EXCHANGE, NEW YORK. Mr. STEVENS, by unanimous consent, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to give the necessary notice stipulated of the intention of the United States to purchase the building known as the Merchants' Exchange, New York city, now used for custom-house purposes.

The joint resolution was read a first and second time; and on motion of Mr. STEVENS the House proceeded to its consideration.

It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to give notice to the owners of the building in New York city known as the Merchants' Exchange, and occupied as a custom-house, of the intention of the United States to purchase the same for the sum of $1,000,000, in accordance with the terms stipulated in the existing lease of the property to the Government.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL.

Mr. STEVENS. House bill No. 598, making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866, has been returned from the Senate with a few amendments, and we do not think it worth while to have them referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. I ask that they be taken up and concurred in.

There was no objection, and the bill and amendments were taken up.

First amendment of the Senate:

In the following, before the word "Mexico" insert the words" republic of:"

For salaries of envoys extraordinary, ministers, and commissioners of the United States at Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, Spain, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, China, Italy, Chili, Peru, Portugal, Switzerland, Rome, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey, New Grenada, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Sandwich Islands, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentine Confederation, Paraguay, Japan, and Salvador, $308,500.

Mr. COX. If there be a perfect concurrence in that amendment I have nothing to say; otherwise I should like to have the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. The Committee of Ways and Means recommend a concurrence. The amendment was concurred in. Second amendment:

Strike out "St. Lambert and Longueuil" from the list of consulates, schedule B.

The Committee of Ways and Means recommended concurrence.

The amendment was concurred in.
Third amendment:

In the following, increase the appropriation from $5,000 to $20,000:

For expenses incurred under instructions from the Secretary of State, in bringing home from foreign countries persons charged with crime, and expenses incident thereto, $5,000.

The Committee of Ways and Means recommended concurrence.

The amendment was concurred in.
Fourth amendment:

Add at the end of the bill:

For expenses of the commission to run and mark the boundary line between the United States and the British possessions bounding on Washington Territory, $13,250. The Committee of Ways and Means recommended concurrence.

The amendment was concurred in.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the votes by which the amendments were concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.