the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the deficiency bill, Messrs. SCHENCK, LITTLEand RANDALL of Pennsylvania. JOHN,

MINING LAWS IN ARIZONA.

Mr. POSTON, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the expediency of adopting the code of mining laws passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona hereto appended.

The papers accompanying the resolution were ordered to be printed.

PAY OF MEMBERS OF ARIZONA LEGISLATURE.

Mr. POSTON presented the memorial and joint resolution of the Territory of Arizona, asking Congress to increase the pay of members of the Legislative Assembly and territorial judges; which were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

COLORADO INDIANS.

Mr. POSTON also presented the memorial of the Territory of Arizona, asking of Congress an appropriation of $150,000 for placing the Indians of the Colorado on a reservation; which was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed.

NAVIGATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER.

Mr. POSTON also presented the memorial of the Legislative Assembly of Arizona, asking an appropriation of $150,000 for the improvement of the navigation of the Colorado river; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.

WAR AGAINST THE APACHES.

Mr. POSTON also presented the memorial of the Territory of Arizona, asking of Congress an appropriation of $250,000 in aid of the war against the Apaches; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed. ARMS FOR ARIZONA.

Mr. POSTON also presented the resolutions of the Territory of Arizona, requesting arms; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

MAIL FACILITIES FOR ARIZONA.

Mr. POSTON also presented the resolutions of the Legislature of Arizona, requesting mail facilities; which were referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

BOUNDARIES OF ARIZONA.

Mr. POSTON also presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of Arizona, instructing the Delegate from that Territory to ask of Congress the appointment of commissioners to fix the boundary line of the Territory of Arizona and other Territories; which were referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. POSTON also presented the memorial of the Territorial Legislature of Arizona asking for a change of the boundary line between that Territory and the State of California; which was referred to the Committee on the Territories, and ordered to be printed.

SALTING RAILROAD TRACKS.

Mr. STEELE, of New York, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to inquire into the expediency of adopting such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use of salt on the tracks of the street railroads in said District, and to report by bill or otherwise.

EXCUSED FROM COMMITTEE SERVICE.

Mr. STEELE, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask to be excused from service on the select committee to investigate the charges against Hon. LUCIEN ANDERSON, to which the Speaker did me the honor to appoint me. My reason for asking to be excused is that Mr. ANDERSON is a member of the same committee of which I am a member; and in consequence of the continued absence of the chairman of the Committee for the District of Columbia, I have been, by the request of my associates, and am still, acting as chairman

of that committee; and of course my time is very much occupied.

There being no objection, Mr. STEELE was excused.

TRADE WITH REBELLIOUS STATES.

Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Committee on Commerce to ask the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 20th instant, directing the said committee to inquire into the matter of a permit granted by the chief agent of the Treasury Department to G. W. Lane, of Baltimore, to proceed to North Carolina and exchange provisions with the rebels for cotton, is hereby directed further to inquire into all the facts and circumstances connected with the trade with the rebellious States since the breaking out of the rebellion, either by permit from the Treasury Department or otherwise; that the said committee have leave to sit during the sessions of the House, and to report at any time; and that the Clerk of the House be directed to pay all the expenses of the said committee out of the contingent fund of the House on the certificate of the chairman.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I object to that resolution. Ido so because that whole matter is now before the Committee on Military Affairs, by

order of the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. NICOLAY, his Private Secretary, informed the House that the President had this day approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the following titles:

An act (H. R. No. 607) to provide for an advance of rank to officers of the Navy and Marine corps for distinguished merit;

An act (H. R. No. 390) for the relief of Emily A. Lyon;

An act (H. R. No. 598) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1866;

and

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 140) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to give the necessary notice stipulated, pending the intention of the United States to purchase the building known as the Merchants' Exchange, in New York city, now used for custom-house purposes.

HENRY KARSTAUS.

Mr. PRICE, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint resolution for the relief of Henry Karstaus; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

NORTHWESTERN SHIP CANAL.

Mr. ALLISON, by unanimous consent, presented a memorial to the President and Congress of the United States, by the Northwestern Ship Canal Convention, assembled at Dubuque, Iowa, May 4, 1864; which was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals, and ordered to be printed.

NIAGARA SHIP CANAL.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the regular order of business. I desire that the committees may be called.

The SPEAKER. The question pending at the adjournment yesterday was the bill (H. R. No. 126) to construct a ship canal around the falls of Niagara. It is, therefore, the regular order, unless it be set aside by unanimous consent or postponed.

Mr. SPALDING. I move that that bill, with the pending amendment, be postponed until Monday next, and made the special order for that day after the morning hour.

The motion was agreed to.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. Mr. PENDLETON. I rise to a privileged question. I desire to call up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill (H. R. No. 214) to provide that the heads of Executive Departments may occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives was recommitted to the select

committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman yield to me a moment?

Mr. PENDLETON. I yield to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.

TAXES IN INSURRECTIONARY DISTRICTS.

in the nature of a substitute, Senate bill No. 171, entitled "An act further to amend an act entitled 'An act for the collection of direct taxes in the insurrectionary districts within the United States, and for other purposes," "approved June 7, 1862. I move that this bill be recommitted, and be ordered to be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

INCREASED PAY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. STEVENS. I also report from the Committee of Ways and Means a bill to provide for the temporary increase of the compensation of certain clerks and employés in the civil service of the Government. I ask that this bill be made the special order for Thursday of next week.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I must object to this bill being made a special order. I object to making any bill for raising salaries a special order to the exclusion of public business. Mr. STEVENS. It is not to the exclusion of public business.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It does exclude everything else, as a matter of course, if it is made a special order.

The SPEAKER. To make the bill a special order at this time requires unanimous consent, and the gentleman from Illinois objects. It can be postponed by a majority, or acted upon now by a majority.

Mr. STEVENS. I move, then, that the bill be postponed until Thursday of next week after the morning hour, and be ordered to be printed. The motion was agreed to.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS-AGAIN.

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Speaker, I now propose to call up the motion to reconsider the vote by which House bill No. 214, to provide that the heads of the Executive Departments may occupy seats upon the floor of the House of Representatives, was recommitted to the select committee.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Does the gentleman desire to go on with the subject to-day?

Mr. PENDLETON. I desire to go on with it for a period, as there are one or two gentlemen who wish to discuss it, and whose convenience will be subserved by discussing it to-day.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman to consent to postpone the bill till after the morning hour. The committees have not been called for a long time.

Mr. PENDLETON. If that will subserve the convenience of the House I certainly have no disposition to object.

Mr. STEVENS. I am anxious to go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to pass several appropriation bills; but I do not, of course, want to interfere with the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PENDLETON. I have only to say, in reference to this measure, that I am inclined to do anything which will suit the convenience of the House. I have waited, as my colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means well knows, in order to have a convenient time to bring it up so as not to interfere with any important business of the House.

Mr. STEVENS. If the gentleman proceeds at once, we can after a while go into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; but if he waits till after the morning hour, there will be no time left to do so.

Mr. PENDLETON. I hope, then, that the gentleman from Illinois will not persist in his request, as I am unwilling to decline, and yet it is evident I cannot accept.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The committees have not been called for weeks, and I know that many have a large amount of business to report. The Committee on Commerce has, for

one.

Mr. PENDLETON. How soon will the morning hour commence?

The SPEAKER. It has already commenced. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask consent to make one report from the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. PENDLETON. Will it give rise to debate? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not think that it will.

Mr. PENDLETON. I will yield for that pur

TRADE WITH REBELLIOUS STATES.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, from the Committee on Commerce, reported the following resolution, and demanded the previous question on its adoption:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 20th instant, directing the said committee to inquire into the matter of a permit granted by the chief agent of the Treasury Department to G. W. Lane, of Baltimore, to proceed to North Carolina and exchange provisions with the rebels for cotton, is hereby directed further to inquire into all the facts and circumstances connected with the trade with the rebellious States since the breaking out of the rebellion, either by permit from the Treasury Department or otherwise; that the said committee have leave to sit during the sessions of the House, and to report at any time; and that the Clerk be directed to pay all the expenses of the said committee out of the contingent fund of the House, on the certificate of the chairman.

Mr. SCHENCK. I ask the gentleman to withdraw the demand for the previous question

for a moment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I withdraw the call for the previous question to hear the gentleman.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, this whole matter of trade across the lines with the rebel States has once already been referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. They are now engaged in collecting information on the subject and have been considering it. Therefore, to my mind, when the whole subject has been referred to one committee, there is a manifest impropriety in referring it to another committee, and that too when we are in the midst of the investigation. I hope, therefore, that the resolution will not be passed, or, if passed, that the Committee on Military Affairs will be discharged from this subject.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise merely to reiterate the statement of my colleague on the Committee on Military Affairs. By a resolution introduced into this House by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BOUTWELL,] the Committee on Military Affairs was charged to investigate the whole question of trade with the rebel States, the transit of the products of the loyal States to those States, and the purchase of their products in return. Subsequently another gentleman from Massachusetts submitted a resoTution calling upon the Secretary of War for the correspondence with General Canby. Then the letter of General Canby and other correspondence were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. That committee has been for some time engaged in collecting the facts and statistics in regard to this trade.

It seems to me that it is a proper subject for the investigation of the Committee on Military Affairs. It appertains very much to the conduct of military affairs. It is a question of trade across the lines, between the loyal and the rebellious States. I agree with my colleague, that when this subject was referred to one committee it is certainly an impropriety to charge another committee with its consideration. It was for this reason that I objected when my colleague asked unanimous consent, a short time since, to introduce this resolution.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. The House will recollect that a few days since the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DRIGGS] introduced a resolution which directed the Committee on Commerce to inquire into a specific case which was mentioned in the resolution. The committee proceeded to discharge that duty; and they have had brought to their attention, while examining that particular case, other cases in precisely the same channel.

Now, sir, I desire to say, on behalf of the Committee on Commerce, that this is an investigation which that committee does not court. We have no feeling whatever in relation to the matter. The subject was sent to them by the House, and in good faith they have entered upon the discharge of that duty, and the committee deem it proper, if the House desire this investigation, that they should have this resolution to work upon.

That is the whole question. If the House desire that the Committee on Commerce shall go forward and make this investigation, they can adopt this resolution. If they do not desire it, but desire that the Committee on Military Affairs shall make the investigation, the Committee on Commerce is satisfied. We are satisfied from what has already appeared before us that this sub

ject opens a wide field for examination, and will require the attention of any committee pretty much all the time from this to the end of the session. If the Committee on Military Affairs have time to attend to it, and the House determine that that is the proper committee to make the examination, the Committee on Commerce are entirely satisfied.

Mr. FRANK. I would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois what will be the expense attending this investigation?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. It is impossible for me to answer that question. I think I can assure the gentleman from New York that there will be no unnecessary expense incurred; but all the expense necessary to a full investigation will be incurred.

Mr. UPSON. How is it proposed to continue this committee beyond the present session?

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There is nothing in the resolution which contemplates any continuation of the committee beyond the present session. Of course everything falls with the Congress.

Mr. SCHENCK. I do not wish any misunderstanding about this matter. I suppose no committee courts an addition to its labors. I do not know how it may be with the Committee on Commerce, but sure I am that very little time can be bestowed upon that, beyond what we are now called upon to give to any special subject, by the committee over which I have the honor to preside.

I simply desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this whole subject has once been referred, with instructions, to the Committee on Military Affairs, and that committee is now engaged, according to the best of its ability and time, in the investigation. And it is now proposed that another committee shall be charged with the same investigation. The Committee on Commerce, it appears, has been charged to look into what has been done in a specific case, having no relation to the general investigation of the whole policy. What is now asked is, that in addition to the inquiry committed to them, their power shall be extended over the whole subject, and they be instructed to report in regard to the whole policy of trade with the rebel States, thus covering, in addition to what they are now charged with, precisely the ground occupied by instructions given in the former resolution to the Military Committee.

Having no particular desire to engage in these investigations, under these circumstances, if the courtesy of the Committee on Commerce and this House is such as to make it seem to them proper to charge the Committee on Commerce with the precise subject of investigation before the Committee on Military Affairs, and with which that committee is now occupied, I shall, after the resolution is passed, ask that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from any further consideration of the subject.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I demand the previous question.

Mr. ALLEY. I ask the gentleman from Illinois to yield to me a moment. I will renew the demand for the previous question. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I will withdraw my demand, under the circumstances.

Mr. ÁLLEY. I believe no more important resolution has been presented to this House since the commencement of this session, and I hope it will be adopted. For one, I should prefer that this subject had been referred to a select committee, owing to its importance and to the labor necessarily involved in the investigation of the matter, which precludes the possibility of such complete investigation by most standing committees as we desire. I know that great complaint has been made in some quarters, and I fear justly, in regard to this subject. If the allegations that have come to my ear are true, then this matter ought to be investigated, and investigated speedily and thoroughly.

I have great confidence, of course, in the Committee on Military Affairs; no one more so, I know. Everybody in this House understands that that committee is more burdened with work than almost any other committee of this House. Its labors are very arduous; and an important subject of this character, which requires a speedy and thorough investigation, and involves such a

great amount of labor, seems to me should be referred to some other equally appropriate committee.

As I said before, I should have preferred that this matter should have been sent to a special committee; but as the House refused to do that, I am for the next best thing, and hope the resolution will be adopted, and that the Committee on Commerce will be charged with the investigation, and by their report let the House and the country know what truth there is in the reports that a few favored individuals are granted exclusive privileges, of immense value to the recipients, which are denied to the great mass of equally worthy applicants.

I renew the demand for the previous question. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; and under the operation thereof the resolution was agreed to-ayes 66,

noes 30.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I demand the yeas and nays on the latter inotion.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. I now ask that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of all questions relating to trade between the loyal and the rebel States, heretofore referred to them by resolution of the House. We will not pay any attention to that resolution, whether we are discharged or not.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I would like to inquire what the subject is from the consideration of which the committee ask to be discharged. Is it the same that we have just referred to the Committee on Commerce?

Mr. SCHENCK. It is precisely the same. The SPEAKER. It is the subject of trade between the loyal and rebel States.

Mr. SPALDING. Is it in order to move that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged with the thanks of the House? [Laughter.]

The motion of Mr. SCHENCK was agreed to. The SPEAKER. Reports are still in order from the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. ELIOT. I am instructed by the Committee on Commerce to report a bill for action at this time.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I feel bound to suggest to my colleague on the committee that it was the understanding with the gentleman from Ohio [M. PENDLETON] that he was only to give way for a single report.

Mr. ELIOT. Then I withdraw my report.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PENDLETON] calls up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution of the House (No. 214) to provide that the heads of Departments may occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives was recommitted to the special committee on that subject.

Mr. STEELE, of New York. I appeal to the gentleman from Ohio to allow me to make a single report from the Committee for the District of Columbia. It will take but a moment. Mr. PENDLETON. I will yield for that purpose.

FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY. Mr. STEELE, of New York, by unanimous consent, reported back from the Committee for the District of Columbia bill of the Senate No. 384, to amend the act entitled "An act to amend and extend the charter of the Franklin Insurance Company," approved 24 March, 1838.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, and it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. STEELE, of New York, 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.

Mr. HOLMAN. I now demand the regular order of business.

THANKS TO MAJOR GENERAL SHERIDAN. Mr. DEMING. I wish, with the permission of the gentleman from Ohio, to report back from

the Committee on Military Affairs the resolution of thanks to Major General Sheridan.

Mr. HOLMAN. I will withdraw my demand for the regular order of business for that purpose only.

Mr. DEMING. I am instructed by the Committee on Military Affairs to report back the joint resolution of the House, (No. 142,) giving thanks to General Sheridan, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The substitute proposes to resolve that the thanks of Congress are hereby tendered to Major General Philip H. Sheridan, and the officers and men under his command, for the gallantry, military skill, and courage displayed in the brilliant series of victories achieved by them in the valley of the Shenandoah, and especially for their services at Cedar Run on the 19th of October, 1864, which retrieved the fortunes of the day and averted a great disaster; and it further requests the President of the United States to communicate this resolution to Major General Sheridan, and through him to the officers and soldiers under his command.

The substitute was agreed to.

The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. Mr. SCHENCK demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the joint resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 131, nays 2, not voting 49; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Cox, Cravens, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Denison, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Edgerton, Eliot, Farnsworth, Finck, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harding, Charles M. Harris, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, IngerFoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, Kelley, Kernan, King, Knox, Lazcar, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Mallory, Marvin, MeAllister, McBride, McClurg, McDowell, Melndoc, Samuel F. Miller, William H. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Morrison, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Noble, Norton, Charles O'Neill, John O'Neill, Orth, Patter son, Perham, Pike, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice, Robinson, Rogers, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart. Thayer, Thomas, Townsend, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Wadsworth, Elibu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Joseph W. White, Wilson, Windoni, and Yeaman-131.

NAYS-Messrs. Benjamin G. Harris and Chilton A. White-2.

NOT VOTING--Messrs. Alley, Baily, Bliss, Brandegee, Chanter, Freeman Clarke, Clay, Creswell, Dawson, Dumont, Eden, Eldridge, English, Hall, Harrington, Herrick, Hulburd, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Knapp, Law, Le Blond, Long, Marey, McKinney, Middleton, James R. Morris, Nelson, Odell, Pendleton, Perry, Pomeroy, Prnyn, Starr, Stiles, Sweat, Tracy, Voorhees, Ward, Williams, Wilder, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, and Worthington-49.

So the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. DEMING moved that the vote just taken be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. SCHENCK. I rise to a privileged question. On behalf of the managers on the part of the House in the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the deficiency bill, I submit a report, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read, as follows:

The second committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 620) to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1865, having met, after full and free conference have been unable to agree. ROBERT C. SCHENCK, SAMUEL J. RANDALL, D. C. LITTLEJOHN, Managers on the part of the House. DANIEL CLARK, LYMAN TRUMBULL, L. W. POWELL, Managers on the part of the Senate.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, before any action be taken by the House on that report, I desire to submit a brief explanation.

When this second committee of conference met,

we found that, in consequence of the action of the House and Senate respectively, there remained but six amendments about which there was question between the two Houses. These were all of them amendments which had been added to the bill by the Senate. The first of these was an amendment in relation to a small appropriation of some four or five hundred dollars for the Denver mint. There was exhibited to us a letter from the Department, explaining the necessity for that appropriation, which satisfied the managers upon the part of the House that the House ought to recede from its disagreement to that amendment.

The second amendment is a large appropriation attached by the Senate for deficiency in the appropriations for the support of the mint at San Francisco. This, being considered by the committee of conference, was found to rest on this state of facts: last year only $50,000 was asked for the support of that mint in one of its items, and altogether some two hundred thousand dollars. This year there is asked for that mint an amount exceeding that by more than two hundred thousand dollars. This deficiency is explained in the papers as having been occasioned by the difficulty in procuring services, by the increased pay for subsistence, by the derangement of the currency, and the difficulty about the use of the paper currency in California. These facts are alleged as explaining why $134,000 more is asked to make up the deficiency of last year. If that deficiency be allowed, the appropriation will still be less, by a very considerable sun, than the appropriation made the present year. Yet the appropriation is large. The committee turned their attention to the papers which were before them, and found that the head of the Department states, upon his authority, that the difficulties stated are such as to render necessary this further appropriation for that deficiency; and he states this with the additional knowledge he is presumed to have, he having had the subject specially under his attention, not only as Secretary of the Treasury, but while serving as a Senator upon the Finance Committee of the Senate. All things considered, the committee were not unwilling to agree that the House should recede from its disagreeing vote on that amendment.

There are three other amendments, numbers six, seven, and eight, of like character, founded upon a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means

ference of the House are concerned, they felt that the House had committed itself in some degree to its employés by the resolution of the House at the last session of Congress. I do not know what would have been the opinion if the question had been an open one. The first committee of conference on the part of the House adhered to that amendment, and were sustained with a good degree of unanimity. The second committee of conference therefore felt itself instructed upon this point by the House.

Now, sir, in order to narrow the whole question, I move that the House recede from its disagreement to the first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments of the Senate, relating to Denver, San Francisco, and the bureaus of the Navy Department, so that there shall be left open between the two Houses nothing but this question in reference to the employés of the House. This will narrow it down to such a point that the House will be enabled to determine whether to abandon the bill or recede from the disagreement to this amendment.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. In order to test this whole question, I move to amend the gentleman's motion by receding from our disagreement to all the amendments of the Senate, and to recede from our disagreement to the amendment which is specially objected to. The gentleman from Ohio has stated plainly and clearly the differences between the two Houses.

At the suggestion of gentlemen, I withdraw my amendment so as first to let the vote be taken on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio. When that is disposed of, I will renew my motion to recede from our disagreement to the fourth amendment of the Senate, and to agree to the same.

The SPEAKER. The first question will be on agreeing to the report of the committee of conference, and will then recur upon the amendments pending before the House.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Mr.Speaker, having been a member of the second committee of conference on the part of the House, I have had the opportunity to make a deliberate investigation of the merits of the differences between the two Houses. I am convinced, sir, that there is no propriety in the action of the other House in so far as it attempts to interfere with the disposition of this House in reference to its own domestic affairs, if I may be permitted to use the expression. It is well known that this has been an

all the articles of living; and it is also well known that this increase falls with great hardship upon the recipients of small salaries.

amendment, providing for an addition of twenty There remained then, Mr. Speaker, the fourth per cent. to the pay last year of the employés of this House. The objection made to that on the part of the Senate is this: that there had prevailed a custom in both the Senate and House of Representatives through a long succession of years of voting by resolution at the close of each session of Congress, in the hurry of adjournment, an increased compensation, a gratuity to its employés, to be paid out of the contingent fund of that particular branch where the vote took place. In 1858, to break up this custom, an act of Congress was passed which prohibited the Senate or House from making such an appropriation out of the contingent fund, and requiring that every such appropriation should be inade by law. It is claimed by the Senate, and is, I believe, according to the fact, that since 1858 there has been no infringement of this law, or an attempt to infringe it by either House of Congress till this time. On the 4th of July last, on the last day of the last session, the House passed a resolution giving a gratuity of twenty per cent. to its employes. The Senate passed no such resolution. In the deficiency appropriation bill of this session a provision was introduced appropriating some thirty thousand dollars to pay this twenty per cent. additional salary to the employés of the House. It was to pay them what it seems they could not receive under the act of 1858.

So far as the managers of the committee of con

Now, as a member of the committee on the part of the House, and with a disposition to yield everything except where the faith of the House is pledged, let me say that many of the employés of the House have regulated their financial mat ters with reference to this increase of pay. This action of the Senate stands, so far as my knowledge goes, and all the information I can get, without precedent. Never has a successful effort been made upon the part of either House to interfere with what I might term the domestic relations of the other House.

I have, therefore, and I say it with great frankness to the House, clearly been convinced that this money should be voted. I do not want to stop the passage of the deficiency bill, nor do I want to lack the proper dignity which I conceive to be due to the House in connection with its own officers; and therefore I move, as an amendment to the motion of the chairman of the committee, that the House adhere to the amendment disagreed to by the Senate.

The SPEAKER. The first question before the committee is upon agreeing to the report of the conference committee. The gentleman can make his motion to adhere, but the question must first be taken upon the motion to recede, as that has priority.

That

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. would make my amendment inappropriate. The SPEAKER. That would depend upon what disposition is made of the first motion. Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. My motion will be in order if that is voted down.

Mr. SCHENCK. My motion to recede applies only to the first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments, leaving out the one relating to the extra compensation.

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish to state a matter of fact which the chairman of the conference committee seems not familiar with, which the Senate seemed to overlook, and which was entirely misstated in some remarks made in that body. It has been the habit of the House, since the passage of the act of 1848, to increase the salaries of its employés-and that was the only thing provided for by that law-by making at the end of the session a gratuity to its employés, payable out of the contingent fund. I have offered more than one resolution of that kind, which has been passed, and the money paid under it. I remember that there was a special case where one of our clerks, Mr. Mehaffey, had an addition made to his salary by way of a gratuity, and it was paid out of the contingent fund. I recollected that that was so; and when I told the chairman of the Senate committee that it was so, he doubted it, and I thereupon consulted with the clerks and was told that I was right in reference to my recollection. Now, if the Senate are inclined to interfere with our domestic institutions and overrule them, I do not feel disposed to let them.

The question being put upon agreeing to the report of the committee of conference, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. SCHENCK. I now move that the House recede from its disagreement to all the amendments of the Senate except the one relating to the twenty per cent. extra compensation.

Mr. HOLMAN. I move to amend by including all the amendments disagreed to by the House.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. As that motion comes from this side of the House, I desire to say a word in opposition to it. It is unnecessary, I think, for any gentleman to stand here and speak to the members of this House, or to persons who may be present in this city, upon the subject of the necessity of an increased compensation to those employés who are compelled to live and discharge their duties in this city. It is well known to every person who has been about Washington city for any number of years past that the cost of living is far greater in this city now than it ever was before; and that the cost of living is far greater in this city now than it is in any other city in the United States.

I am aware that there are gentlemen to whom this is a matter of light consideration, but I do not consider it so very high an honor for persons to come here to swing doors, to act as messengers, and to do the bidding of members from morning to night in the streets and through the storm, that they should work for nothing, find themselves, and live in back streets at that. I do know that no messenger can live in a front street in Washington comfortably, and pay his bill out of the compensation he now receives. Every gentleman knows that. Then why any squeamishness about increasing the compensation of this class of persons? We have heard considerable said from time to time about increasing the compensation of the soldier. We have increased his compensation, and he occupies a different position from the employés of this House, for he is furnished his living, and therefore the increased price of living does not affect him. It does not come out of his pay. The Government furnishes it to him. But the messengers of this House, the civil employés of the Government, (and these remarks apply to the employés in the Departments as well as to the employés of this House,) are bound all of them to find themselves, and the increased cost of living in this city over what it was two or three years ago, besides the increased cost in this city over other eities in the United States, demands, as an act of justice on the part of this House, that this compensation shall be increased.

I am sorry to see my friend from Indiana, [Mr. HOLMAN, who has been so active upon all occasions in his efforts to increase the pay of the soldier, now turning round on the faithful employes of the House and of the Government in a differcat capacity, although, perhaps, not voting in his

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1865.

district, and undertaking to confine them to what he must know is an inadequate compensation.

Mr. HOLMAN. I know that it is a very ungracious task to oppose, especially in the presence of the gentlemen who are to be affected, a measure increasing their official compensation, and argue in favor of a uniform and general rule by which the employés of the Government in all its departments shall receive a just compensation for their services; and it is a very easy and grateful task for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. JOHNSON] to argue before the very courteous and affable gentlemen who are around us, and who, from day to day aid us so much in the performance of our official duties, in favor of this increased compensation. It is very pleasant indeed, sir, and I should, if it were consistent with my sense of duty, aid the measure with the greatest pleasure, and would even attempt to rival him in its advocacy, for to support the interests of friends is always a pleasant employment.

But, sir, what strikes me with astonishment is that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] chairman of this committee of conference, is willing to concede appropriations of hundreds of thousands of dollars which the first committee of conference, under the lead of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] thought were totally unadvisable, that the House may by possibility be able to secure this appropriation of $37,000 for the benefit of gentlemen around us, the employés of the House.

Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman will allow me to correct him. In the first place, I will inform him that the present committee of conference considered the merits of these amendments as well as their amount; they were willing to yield them, although not the other amendment, || upon their merits and upon the papers submitted to us. Further than that, the former committee of conference, as we were informed, came to the same conclusion.

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman has no knowledge of that fact.

NEW SERIES.....No. 27.

to be retained in the bill or not. I can scarcely believe that gentlemen the employés of the House, as excellent officers and citizens as I know anywhere, are very anxious to receive a compensation for their services of one fifth more than is paid under the general system of compensation in other departments of public employment. I do not think it would be very agreeable to them to receive this increased compensation by an invidious discrimination. It is not, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. JOHNSON] seems to intimate, a general compensation of all the employés of the Government, but of a particular class of employés whose duties are similar to others. If there has been such a depreciation of the currency as to justify increasing the cost of all the necessaries of life and requiring a general increase of twenty per cent., well and good; but let the increase be general, let the Government be equal and just in dealing with its citizens. I think that a body like the Congress of the United States ought to deal out justice equally, not on a system of favoritism. The benefits of the Government and even its favors should fall, like the dews of heaven, on all alike. Here we discriminate in favor of our own employés. However worthy they are, they are not more so than the employés of the Senate or of other departments of the Government. It does seem to me that the earnest anxiety on the part of gentlemen to effect this increase of salaries is almost without precedent în our legislation.

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Indiana has suggested that there ought to be a general increase of compensation. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he would vote for a general increase of twenty per cent. throughout all the departments of the Govern

ment?

Mr. HOLMAN. No, sir; I would not vote for a general increase of twenty per cent. But I say that the question before the House is very different from what it would be if, instead of this partial act of legislation, it were a proposition for the equal benefit of all persons in the employment of the Government. Gentlemen cannot fail to remember that the officers of our Army, whose compensation was fixed so far back as 1861, be

Mr. SCHENCK. I had the assurance of each one of the members composing the conference committee on the part of the Senate that the sole question which could have remained open, if they could have acted separately upon these amend-fore any depreciation of the currency, are demandments, which the committee of conference cannot do, for it must either agree in the whole or disagree altogether, would have been this one relating to the compensation of the employés of this House. But I want the gentleman from Indiana to understand that the decision on the part of the managers of the conference last held was upon the merits of each case, and the papers before them, and was not regulated by this particular amendment. The intimation, therefore, that we were willing to yield thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars for other purposes and stood out on this particular point, is not a generous one, and not in accordance with the fact that we made special inquiries in each particular case.

Mr. HOLMAN. I do not think, judging from the record, that it can be said that the intimation is an ungenerous one. With this statement it would be, but I simply judge, as other members must do, by the record. The first committee reported a total inability to agree with the conferees on the part of the Senate without any explanation.

Mr. SCHENCK. So do we, for the simple reason which the gentleman is parliamentarian enough to understand-that committees of conference have to report either an entire agreement or an entire disagreement,

Mr. HOLMAN. I inferred from the absence of any statement that the disagreement in the committee of conference was on all the points. I know that the practice has prevailed here on the part of committees of conference, when they were unable to agree on all the points, to report that they were able to agree on certain points and not on others, But the fact remains that the other five or six items on which the first committee differed are to be yielded, and the only question which remains is whether this item of $37,000 is

ing an increase of compensation. They would be very willing, I presume, to receive an increase of twenty per cent., and yet there has been no movement on this floor in favor of such increase. But it is salaries now ranging from eighteen hundred to three thousand dollars a year that must be increased twenty per cent., while the great body of our citizens, thousands of whom are qualified for any position, now in Government employment, are receiving a pittance of sixteen dollars per month-$192 a year-and with bounties and all not amounting, so far as the Government pays, to $350 per annum. What are we thinking of? Here are republican legislators favoring a partial increase of compensation in one department of the Government, now respectably paid, to the extent of one fifth, while not a voice has been raised in favor of an increase of the pay of those who are imperiling health, life, and fortune for the salvation of the Republic. Are some to make all the sacrifices and others none at all for the public safety? Neither the Committee of Ways and Means nor the Committee on Military Affairs have taken any legislative steps to increase the pay of the soldier in the field. I, for one, protest against that partiality which discriminates in favor of one class of Government employés in a matter in which all are equally interested.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Is not the gentleman from Indiana aware of the fact that when the war commenced the pay of the soldier was eleven dollars a month? It was increased by legislation to thirteen dollars a month, and afterward to sixteen dollars. Thus, in addition to large bounties, the pay of the soldier has been increased twice within three years, while the compensation of the officers of this House has not been increased at all.

Mr. HOLMAN. My friend from Pennsylvania will recollect that there has been no increase of compensation of the officers of the Army since the beginning of the present war. Their compensation remains, as a general thing, what it was. My friend talks of the increased pay of the soldier. If you will point to me valuable citizens in the pay of the Government, who were receiving eleven, thirteen, or sixteen dollars per month when the war began, I will admit the parallel. But it is the increase of these mere pittances of compensation that you put against the increase of salaries which were $1,200, $1,600, or $3,000, when the war began, and which it is now proposed to increase. I believe, sir, there is no employé of this House whose compensation is less than fifty dollars per month; I think I can say that there is none whose compensation is less than sixty dollars per month.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him? I think that in the employ of this House there is a class of men who receive but $1 50 per day. How the gentleman can make that sixty dollars per month I do not know.

Mr. HOLMAN. My friend is laboring under a misapprehension.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I think

not.

Mr. HOLMAN. I think that if the gentleman will look over the reports made by the Clerk to this House, he will find that there is not a single employé of the House whose compensation is less than sixty dollars per month.

The salaries paid to the employés of this House vary from sixty dollars per month to three thousand or three thousand five hundred dollars per year. Yet the gentleman compares the salaries paid to these civil employés with the pittance which is paid to the soldier; and I am told as a Democrat, and told by a Democrat, that it is an ungrateful task to resist this increase of salaries on this partial principle of legislation. The Democracy have become very generous indeed, sir! I remember, when they have had the power of this Government in their hands, that their motto was a rigid economy in public expenditures, and that, too, with a full Treasury. Then, sir, no extravagance in salaries or anything else was tolerated. If the citizen engaged in the public service it should not be with the view to a compensation far exceeding that which is ordinarily received in private pursuits. I have yet to learn that the Democratic party of this country are becoming eager, by extravagant expenditure and large salaries and costly establishments, to make this a brilliant Government, a splendid Government-splendid in the emoluments to be realized by those who are in public employment, but miserable to those who bear the burdens.

Sir, when gentlemen tell me that the pay of the employés of this House is small, I will ask their attention to a single fact: that such is the expenditure of this single branch of the national Legislature, so extended and extravagant is the list of employés by this House, that an increase of only one fifth-twenty per cent., as now proposedon their compensation amounts to the magnificent sum of $37,000. Thirty-seven thousand dollars! This sum is required by the bill for an addition of one fifth of the amount which is now paid. How long ago was it that $37,000 paid the whole expenses of the House? Yet gentlemen talk about our employés as being insufficiently and poorly paid. Sir, if this Government rose to the true dignity of a republic-if it were not simply a republic in name but one in fac.-instead of the employé in civil life receiving from sixty dollars per month to $3,000 per year, it would be the soldier, imperiling all for his country, meeting the leaden hail of death, who would receive the highest compensation, and not the citizen who, in the peaceful security of private life, advances as he may his own fortunes without any direct regard to the welfare of his country. Sir, while I remain upon this floor, representing a constituency who have made, in common with every other constituency, sacrifices for the public safety, I never will consent to any increase of salaries where they are reasonably sufficient for the honorable subsistence of the officer, while the fact remains that the soldiers in our Army-an Army that is the pride and boast of the nation, and filled with the intelligent and aspiring youth of the nation-are not receiv

ing a compensation that begins to be commensurate with that which is paid even for labor in the more peaceful, quiet, and secure pursuits. Gentlemen talk about an increase of salaries for the purpose of enabling our employés to live. Yet the soldier lives on his sixteen dollars per month, from which he must support his wife and his little children; and this meager pay is earned, not in the secure pursuits of peace, but amid the perils of war. Are the soldiers alone to make sacrifices?

Mr. Speaker, I object to this method of increasing salaries, and especially to the precedent now attempted to be set of appropriating money by the action of a single House, for the argument for the increase is a resolution of last session. It is unwise, sir, for either branch of Congress to attempt to increase the compensation of its own employés except by the enactment of a law. The Senate may well resist the action of the House. I desire, just as other gentlemen do, to stand very well with the excellent gentlemen who constitute the officers and employés of this House; I shall not forfeit their good opinion, if I possess it, by the independent performance of what I deem my duty, however much it may affect themselves. But, independently of this, I should not care. 1 am responsible only to my constituents for the performance of my duties, and I should perform them fearlessly and carnestly, however much I might regret that my sense of duty as a Representative came in conflict with the interests of worthy gentlemen or of proved friends.

I oppose this amendment because it is partial

of living, he would I suppose use the same argument, that his pay had been fixed already in former times, and therefore he could not grant any increase.

He alleges that he could not grant this increase of pay, looking to his Democratic proclivities. I, for one, as a Democrat, protest against his doctrine on that point. As Democrats we have felt it to be our duty for years to pay our employés liberal salaries for the labors which they are called upon to perform; and in justice to them, as the cost of living increased, we have increased those salaries; it is only just to those who serve us. And I am not to be moved from that position by any argument addressed to the popular ear in reference to the discrimination of the pay of our employés and the pay of our soldiers in the field. I have been ready to go with my friend from Indiana step by step for the increase of their pay; but that is not the question before the House.

The question is, what shall we pay our employés? The question is whether their compensation is sufficient for their support. Do we pay them a reasonable compensation for their labor? We have already answered that it was not; and we cannot recede from that position without a violation of our faith to those men who have been diligently and faithfully discharging their duties. It seems to me that this House ought to be prompted to take care of its own interests by giving to its employés such compensation as it thinks reasonable. It is a fact not disputed that the employés of the Senate receive and have been re

We have not complained of that; we have only asked in this exigency of the times that we shall be allowed to pay to our employės such compensation as will afford them reasonable remuneration for their labors. We have done that and nothing more. We have done nothing more than we are entitled to do. I, for one, do not feel like receding from the position taken by the House upon this question. I will not recede at the dietation of the Senate of the United States upon a question which affects our own employés.

Mr. J. C. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the discussion of this

question, and beg leave to ask the indulgence of the House to one or two words in reply. I understand that the House during the last session of Congress passed a resolution increasing the pay of its employés, and that the Clerk, owing|| to some construction which was placed upon the general law by the Department, did not feel authorized at that time to execute the resolution of the House. In this bill I understand there is a provision to carry out what was the declared purpose of the House at the last session of Congress in reference to the increased pay of its employés. I say that we cannot, without a violation of the faith of the House, refuse to adhere to that provision in behalf of those employés who have been faithfully discharging their duties from that time to this.

And, sir, it does seem to me that the arguments of my friend from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] are indeed most strange. Why, sir, the expenses of living here, and to which the employés of the House are especially subjected, have increased threefold since their compensation was fixed. Yet the gentleman from Indiana insists that that compensation shall not be increased, but must remain as it is. He talks about making these officers exalted in a great Government! There is nothing of the kind. We only propose to give them what we have already promised, without increasing their importance whatever. The gentleman ought to be ashamed to make such an argument before this House. If he were a farmer, I presume, in order to carry out his own principle, when one of his employés called upon him and informed him that he could not live upon his pay and subsist his family, and that he must have it increased, he would turn upon him and use the argument that he used this morning. If he were a man of business, and one of his clerks demanded an increase of pay in consequence of the increased cost

Mr. MORRILL. I demand the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question was ordered to be put.

The SPEAKER. There are three propositions

man from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] to recede from the disagreement of the House to all the amendments of the Senate except the one which has been under discussion, the appropriation out of the contingent fund to pay the twenty per cent. extra compensation to the employés of the House; second, the motion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLMAN] to amend by including all the amendments in the motion to recede; and lastly, the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] that the House adhere to the disputed fourth amendment in reference to the payment of the extra compensation.

The first question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Indiana to amend the motion of the gentleman from Ohio so as to include all the

amendments in the motion to recede.

The question was put; and on a division there were-ayes 33, noes 90.

Mr. PIKE demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. So the amendment was not agreed to. The question recurring on the motion of Mr. SCHENCK, that the House recede from its disagreement to all the amendments of the Senate except the fourth, it was put; and there were, on a division-ayes 70, noes 43.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. There is evidently a misapprehension, and I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I would suggest to the gentleman that we had better reserve the yeas and nays for the last proposition, as that is the important one.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I will withdraw the demand.

So the motion was agreed to.

The question recurred upon the motion that the House adhere to its disagreement to the fourth amendment of the Senate.

Mr. HOLMAN. What will be the effect of agreeing to that motion?

The SPEAKER. The House will determine