Mr. LANE, of Kansas. But the suggestion of the Senator from Vermont was that he would have one volume extracted from a set. It cannot be done in the way he suggested.

Mr. COLLAMER. Every man who receives this receives a single volume, a broken set, and will want the others.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. This is demanded by the Commissioner, who seems to be very anxious about it. I should like to have the ear of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HARLAN.] This is the resolution introduced by him to furnish to the Commissioner of Agriculture two thousand copies of the agricultural portion of the Census Report.

Mr. HARLAN. I understand that the Commissioner of Agriculture desires to use these volumes to distribute to the correspondents with the office. He has several thousand, I think, scattered all over the country, from whom he gains information, statistics, and knowledge of the condition of the crops; and he believes that the possession of these books by those correspondents would enable them to correspond more satisfactorily, and enable him to discharge his duties more sensibly. I think if the cost will be no more than the Senator from Kansas states, it ought to be appropriated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER in the chair.) The question is on the motion of the Senator from Kansas to take up for consideration the resolution indicated by him.

The motion was agreed to; and the resolution was considered, as follows:

Resolved, That two thousand copies of the agricultural part of the Census Report for 1860 be printed for the use of the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I would like now to have the opinion of the Senator from Rhode Island, whom I see in his seat.

Mr. ANTHONY. I think this resolution ought to pass. I think the documents ought to be given to the Commissioner of Agriculture. The expense will be less than I thought it would be when I first objected. It will cost $4,600 for the printing in the style in which the book is now printed; but it is unnecessary to do that. It can be done for about $3,500.

The resolution was agreed to.

SWAMP LANDS IN KANSAS.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas, submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of extending the provisions of the act "granting swamp and overflowed land to certain States" to the swamp and overflowed lands in the State of Kansas, and to report by bill or otherwise. LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed 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 June, 1866; the pending question being on the amendment of the Committee on Finance, to strike out the following proviso in lines nine hundred and fifty, nine hundred and fifty-one, nine hundred and fiftytwo, and nine hundred and fifty-three:

Provided, That no further expenditures shall be made for the experimental system of hydrostatic printing by the Treasury Department until such experiments shall have been definitely authorized by law, and a distinct appropri ation made therefor.

Mr. SHERMAN. The debate yesterday took a much wider range than it seems to me it ought to have done, considering the question before the Senate. We are not now discussing whether the guards in the Treasury Department are sufficient for the protection of the Government against fraud. That question is now before the Committee on Finance, and is being investigated, so far as our time will allow. There are other bills that will bring that question directly before the Senate before the close of the present session. The only purpose of this proviso, on the part of the House of Representatives, if I understand it, was

to stop the use of the hydrostatic machines. Perhaps the language of the proviso is not broad enough to cover their purpose; but I have read the debate in the House, and it is manifest that the purpose of the mover of this proviso was to stop the use of the hydrostatic presses; and the effect will be, if this proviso is adopted, to stop their use. It is admitted on all hands that some of these presses are defective; some of them have been changed, and are now in good condition, and are working daily to the satisfaction of the Department and the friends of the machines, and others of them need repairs. If the Department is forbidden by this provision from making changes in the machines now on hand; from adopting new improvements; from strengthening these machines, although improvements may promise perfection, this provision will cut off all such improvements.

Now, it seems to me that a few facts ought to settle the controversy in this matter. We know that at great expense the Government has established a Printing Bureau in the Treasury Department. No one who has examined it would be willing to place ourselves again at the mercy of the bank-note companies in the country. It is proved very clearly, by the documents that have been laid on our tables, that the saving in the cost of printing in the Treasury Department is very large, counting even all that may be said about the expenditures on these and all other experi

ments.

Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator be kind enough to refer me to that document?

Mr. SHERMAN. I can. The facts will be found in the reports which have been made. Mr. GRIMES. What reports?

Mr. SHERMAN. The Secretary of the Treasury, at the last session of Congress, made a report on that subject which I think is satisfactory; at any rate it is sufficient for me to say now that there is no proposition before Congress to abolish the printing in the Treasury Department. Every gentleman who has gone from either House of Congress to investigate this subject is satisfied that it would not be wise to stop the printing in the Treasury Department, and I believe no proposition is now pending to change it. It has been organized under the law, and is now being conducted with great success.

In printing notes they have adopted two forms of printing; one is called the wet-press printing, and the other the dry-press printing. Both are being now daily practiced; both are believed to be successful. The friends of one system claim that it is the best, the friends of the other system that it is the best. Now, the question is, whether Congress, with its limited knowledge, will come in and say by law that the officers charged with the execution of the law shall not use a particular kind of machine, or shall not perfect that machine in the way they have been doing. It seems to me that the statement of the proposition is sufficient of itself to induce the Senate to vote against this proviso. As long as we carry on the system of printing notes in the Treasury Department improvements will constantly be made.

I may strengthen this position by saying that not only was the former Secretary of the Treasury Department, now the Chief Justice, in favor of this system, which was established under his supervision, but the present Secretary who is there, and who must be familiar with all the facts connected with it so far as a gentleman of the legal profession can be with practical matters like this, believes that the system is a success. Three members of the Senate Committee on Finance, who certainly were not prejudiced in favor of this mode of printing, went there and examined it with a view to report to the Finance Committee on the subject, and they unanimously agreed that it would be unwise to discontinue the system. It is true some believe it is a success on one point and some on another, but they unanimously agree that the printing should be continued in the Treasury Department.

Under these circumstances, for the Senate and House of Representatives to say by law that the Secretary of the Treasury shall not pursue these experiments, shall not continue this system of printing, it seems to me is rather peculiar legislation. I will not now be led into the discussion of yesterday whether the protections are suffi

cient. This is not the question before the Senate. The only question now is whether the Senate will say that the Secretary shall not print by the hydrostatic process, or shall not improve on the present system now going on in that Department. I say it will be unwise in Congress to take such action. We had better leave it to the officers who have charge of this service, allow them to make all the improvements they can, allow them to adopt that which is best, to experiment as much as they choose as to the mode and printing, and hold them responsible for the consequences.

Mr. GRIMES. I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Finance that this whole question is in a nut-shell. I agree with him, too, that the question which is now before us is not as to whether there are proper checks and guards in the Currency Bureau; although I am satisfied, from the statement of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON,] combined with the statement of the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. CLARK,] taken in connection with the report that has been laid on our tables, purporting to be the report made by Mr. Clark, the chief of this particular bureau, who has charge of the printing, and purporting to have been submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, that there are not proper guards and balances. But, sir, I am alarmed-I am alarmed as one who is interested in the currency of this country-when I see that the man who has the charge of that bureau is still grasping after and attempting to secure the printing of the national bank currency.

Mr. President, let us look at the history of this matter a little. It seems that the Secretary of the Treasury preceding the present one commenced some experiments in the Bureau of Printingwhich Congress, I suppose, authorized him to establish-in regard to hydrostatic printing. I think there are two or three things that are not controverted here between the Senators who are members of the sub-committee of the Committee on Finance. The first of these is that there has been at least $300,000 expended in these experiments. I understood the Senator from Missouri to say so. Am I correct or am I wrong?

Mr. HENDERSON. I cannot state the precise amount, but I suppose it is between two and three hundred thousand dollars-somewhere in that neighborhood. It certainly must be, if wè take into consideration the hydrostatic presses that have been furnished.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Iowa does not wish to misunderstand the matter. Mr. GRIMES. No, sir.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am informed that the whole cost of experiments in the Treasury Department in regard to printing, of all forms, will not exceed $250,000, and the entire expense of the hydrostatic printing is less than $100,000, including all the repairs and all the machines. We have the bills before us showing that fact.

Mr. GRIMES. I understand as a further fact that as a result of these experiments four patents have been obtained in the names of Mr. Clark and Mr. Stewart Gwynne, or one of them, for inventions and improvements that have been made in the Treasury Department with our money with which they have been experimenting. 1 understand that to be a fact asserted by the Senator from Missouri. Am I right about that?

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe that there have been four caveats filed. I so understand. I do not know whether all the patents have been issued

or not.

Mr. GRIMES. I understand it further to be a fact that the amount of printing that has been done by these hydrostatic presses up to this time does not exceed a quarter of a million of dollars. Mr. HENDERSON. I so understand.

Mr. GRIMES. I think the amount of hydrostatic printing on the paper such as was exhibited here yesterday by the Senator from New Hampshire does not exceed a quarter of a million of dollars.

Mr. CLARK. On that particular paper. Mr. HENDERSON. On any paper whatever. I do not understand that the hydrostatic presses have been in operation any great time.

Mr. CLARK. They have printed over two millions, as you will find by examining the fig

ures.

Mr. HENDERSON. Two millions of currency or of bonds and currency?

Mr. CLARK. Of both.

Mr. HENDERSON. Ah! that may be. I spoke of currency.

Mr. GRIMES. I should presume there had been more than two millions of bonds and currency both; but that is not what the Senator from New Hampshire based his argument upon yesterday.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is but just to say that the hydrostatic presses have been in operation printing the fractional currency, and a great many impressions make but a small amount of money.

Mr. GRIMES. I am astonished that there has not been more than two millions of our bonds and currency in circulation, of one kind and another, printed by the hydrostatic presses during the whole time we have been running those presses. Mr. CLARK. That is only six months.

Mr. GRIMES. It is more than six months ago since the House of Representatives instituted their investigations into this very subject of hydrostatic presses. The House of Representatives have seen fit to provide as a proviso to this appropriation that no more money shall be expended upon these experiments. They want to stop them where they are. They do not want our money to be used by either Mr. Gwynne or Mr. Clark, or both of them, in perfecting patents by which they are going to fill their own pockets. They are content to leave the Secretary of the Treasury to do his printing as he has done it. If he choose to continue the use of these hydrostatic presses, he has a right to do it under this clause. The proviso is simply that no more money shall be expended in experiments; and I agree with the House. I think it is time we stopped them. I think the proviso was properly put on by the House of Representatives, and I am in favor of maintaining it.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I have been astonished that this subject should have excited so much debate. It seems to me to be a very plain one. Congress he heretofore decided that the Secretary of the Treasury should exercise his own pleasure whether the currency shall be printed in the Department or by contract. It is not proposed to take away from him that discretion. Then, if the work is to be done in the Department, it is not merely an administrative question how it shall be done, whether upon one kind of press or another, whether upon this sort of paper or that. Is that a question Congress can decide? It seems to me that all Congress can do is to authorize the issue of securities of a particular description, and leave it as an administrative question to the head of the Department as to the manner in which that shall be done. I cannot see that Congress could safely undertake to say whether the printing shall be done in one style or in another. For myself I have not this information which would enable me to give an intelligent vote on a question of that kind. I shall certainly support the amendment of the committee, as I understand that it is in accordance with the views of the Department.

Mr. CLARK. I do not desire to take up the time of the Senate, but I wish to correct some impressions that I think are wrong in the minds of Senators; and first, in regard to the amount that has been expended in the Treasury for the printing of the currency altogether. It was asserted here yesterday, certainly, by Senators around me, if not in the debate, in such a way as to become known, that there had been two or three millions expended in this printing. The whole amount is one million fifty-four thousand and some hundreds of dollars, as shown by the books, and not one hundred thousand dollars has been expended in this hydrostatic method. About fifteen millions in amount have been printed by the ordinary printing presses, and two millions by the hydrostatic presses, for the reason that the ordinary presses have been running a year and a half, and only fifteen hydrostatic presses for six months. We have seventy-two of them, and the rest have not been running yet; there are only fifteen running now; but it is contemplated to run about double the number we are now running, next week. I think it can be clearly shown that there is a great saving to the Government. We have already paid to the bank-note companies of New York for the work they have done, over two million dollars, they retaining the plates, &c.,

while we in the Treasury Department have done our own work, and expended a little over a million, and have printed a vast amount of currency. Mr. JOHNSON. How much was issued by the bank-note companies?

Mr. CLARK. I have not the means of stating, because it does not appear here. I have here the official report of Mr. Clark to the Secretary of the Treasury, giving these figures, and they can be verified by the books of the companies. The report says:

"The quantity and amount of work upon the currency and securities in this division, from the date of its organization to the 1st of October, 1864, is properly divisible into three classes, namely:

"First. Currency and securities, printed wholly or in part by the New York bank-note companies, and-finished in this division. These aggregate 12,786,214 sheets, and amount to $629,305,900."

There are certain securities that are printed in part in New York, and then come here unfinished and are finished here.

"Second. Currency and securities printed and finished in this division. These aggregate 6,693,257 sheets, and amount to $1,636,281,239.

"Third. Securities which have been delivered to this division by the Treasurer of the United States and the Comptroller of the Currency, for printing indorsements and certificates thereon. These aggregate 20,022 sheets, and amount to $52,375,350.”

I will not take up the time of the Senate to go over and show these various kinds; I will simply turn the attention of the Senate to what was the effect of this printing upon the postal and fractional currency. Senators will bear in mind that some time ago we printed postal currency, as it was called, and now we print what is called fractional currency, being about the same in size and printed in the same way. The postal currency was printed by the bank-note companies, the fractional currency is printed in the Depart

Now, Mr. President, I have to say that a certain amount of printing done in New York, after it was finished cost more to bring it here and deliver it to the Treasury, than it did to print it here, the express charges were so great. Let me call attention to that point:

"The cost of producing issues in New York, instead of in the Treasury, is further augmented by the cost of transmission from New York to Washington of the printing executed by the bank-note companies. The charges for trans mission to the Government, though reported to be much less than the charges to individuals for like service, still aggregate a large amount; and on some of the issues the cost of transmission alone exceeds the entire cost of producing in the Treasury. For instance, the charge for transmitting the registered bonds from New York to Washington is fifteen cents for each $1,000 transmitted. Two packages of registered bonds were recently delivered to this division, printed in New York and transmitted by express, marked to contain $32,000,000. Each of these packages could have been carried by hand. The contract price of transmission would be $4,800. The same amount of this issue of the same denominations could have been printed in the Treasury for $110."

I may be permitted here, perhaps, by the indulgence of the Senate, to say one word in regard to the security of this matter. I will not undertake to say, because I have not made the examination sufficiently to know, that this system in the Treasury is entirely secure, but I venture to say that it is much surer than the method of printing in New York. Take an instance which is here given:

"That the check upon production, established by these companies for their own protection, is insufficient, is proven by two marked occurrences in this division. In one case, one of the New York companies sent to me a package containing one thousand more impressions-amounting to $8,000-than was marked upon the package or included in the invoice. I immediately notified the proper officers of the company of its receipt. They at first denied the sending of the excess. Even after the sheets were converted into lawful money, and I had delivered the amount to the Treasurer of the United States and obtained his receipt therefor, they still refused to admit the sending of the excess. It was not until such excessive sending was proven

upon them by the consecutiveness of numbers that they reluctantly admitted the error, and rendered a bill for the printing."

Mr. GRIMES. What company in New York was that?

Mr. CLARK. It does not specify which one. Mr. GRIMES. If the Senator is going to read against one of the New York companies charges of that kind on the authority of Mr. Clark's report, that does not come here vouched even by his chief, the Secretary of the Treasury, I think he ought at least to tell us which one of the New York companies it was, so that we might have the opportunity to contradict it.

Mr. CLARK. I differ entirely from the Senator from Iowa. There may be a good reason why I should not specify the company.

Mr. GRIMES. But there is a good reason why Clark should.

Mr. CLARK. I do not know any good reason why Mr. Clark should, and I do not think Mr. Clark has the same feeling toward the New York companies that they seem to have in regard to him. He does not desire to find fault with any one company, nor do I, but to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that such things have been done, without charging it upon this or that person, but only to show the system. That is all.

"Within a few days $16,000,000 of the same bonds were received in one package, which could be carried by hand. The contract price of transmission was $2,400. The cost of printing these in the Treasury would have been but sixty-three dollars,”

As I said before, we have paid these bank-note companies in New York over two million dollars. I do not find any fault with the companies; I am only discussing the cost of the two systems. The bank-note companies have done over twenty million dollars of work in securities and currency, as shown by this report, and the amount which we have expended in the Treasury for the same purpose, including machinery, paper, and everything, the experiment of making paper and all, a little over a million dollars.

Mr. GRIMES. If that be so, I would inquire how this bill happens to make appropriations to the extent of $3,775,000 for this very bureau.

Mr. SHERMAN. I can answer that question readily. The Senator from Iowa leaps at conclusions too rapidly. 'He has lumped together three items amounting to three million dollars and over. The first item covers all the expenses of the national loans, the advertising, the printing of notes, the amount paid to banks, &c., as agents. The second item, $1,100,000, is solely for the Internal Revenue Bureau, for procuring dies, stamps, adhesive stamps, paper, printing forms and regu lations for the internal revenue. Not one dollar of it ever goes into the Printing Bureau of the Treasury Department. So of the next item. The whole amount of this money which is paid for the Printing Bureau is only a small fraction of the $2,000,000 appropriated in the first clause, and that appropriation of $2,000,000 covers all the expenses of national loans. The second item, as I have said, is entirely paid out by the Internal Revenue Bureau.

Mr. GRIMES. It is the fault, then, of the committees who manufactured the bill originally, if they put it under the wrong head.

Mr. SHERMAN. Not at all.

Mr. GRIMES. These items are not put under the head of internal revenue, or under anything that relates to any other subject than "the Independent Treasury "and the manufacture of money.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator in that does not do justice to the other House, which framed this bill. He is talking at random. The second item is:

For procuring dies, stamps, adhesive stamps, paper, printing forms and regulations, advertising, and other expenses of carrying into effect the act of June 30, 1864.

That is the act to provide internal revenue. Mr. GRIMES. Look back to page 37 and see what head you have got your items under.

Mr. SHERMAN. That head only applies to the items relating to the sub-Treasury. These are all independent items.

Mr. GRIMES. That head applies to every item until you get down to "commissioners of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts," only four lines after the item to which the Senator refers. That is the next general head after the one relative to the expenses of the sub-Treasury. If I jumped the stile before I reached it, it is simply

because the item was not included by the authors of the bill under the heading to which it properly belonged.

Mr. SHERMAN. Even that criticism is not well taken. This bill is divided into several heads, but there are many items scattered through the bill that do not relate to the particular heads. This is the ordinary form and mode in which these bills have come to us for years from the House of Representatives. These three items in regard to printing, stamps, &c., are all grouped together. They relate to all the different Departments of the Gov

ernment.

Mr. CLARK. There was some confusion in the debate yesterday in regard to the distinctive paper of the Treasury Department, whether it could be printed both wet and dry. I was under the impression that it might be printed both ways, but on inquiry I find that the fractional currency paper is only to be printed dry. I stated yesterday that in photographing this fractional currency paper the membranous part of it photographed black. I hold in my hand a specimen of the fractional note paper which has been photographed, and Senators by looking at it will see that the result of photographing is to cover the paper all over with black marks like ink marks.

I have here a great variety of this printing from the Treasury Department, which I obtained by giving my receipt for it, with my bond of honor that it should be returned. I shall not allow anybody to take it from my desk, but if anybody desires to see it I will carry it into the Vice President's room and be happy to show it to any one, for I am answerable that it shall go back to the Treasury, it being charged to me, and the sheets being all imperfect. There is not one of them that can be used in its present condition, but I shall be happy to show them to any Senator.

Mr. DAVIS. I would inquire of the honorable Senator if he is the only honest Senator, in the judgment of the Treasury Department, in this body.

Mr. CLARK. Not by any means; but suppose I should let these sheets wander about among the Senators; Senators, while being entirely honest, might not think of bringing them back, or somebody might take them from them, so that I could not find them. I beg the Senator's pardon if he infers from anything I said that I would not trust them with a Senator.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. COWAN. On giving bond.

Mr. CLARK. I will let any Senator have a specimen without a bond, if he will be responsible to bring it to me again.

Now, Mr. President, I shall conclude what I have to say at this time-I am prepared to go further into the matter-by sending to the Chair a letter from the former Secretary of the Treasury to Mr. Clark, dated the 6th of February, which I ask may be read.

The Secretary read the following letter:

WASHINGTON, February 6, 1865.

MY DEAR SIR: I have read with much interest, and all the care my duties allowed, your report to Secretary Fessenden on the operations of your division of the National Currency Bureau. I am glad you have prepared this complete vindication of the system of bond and note engraving, printing, and preparation for issue in the Treasury Department. Strange that a system which saves millions of dollars should need any.

Perhaps no one can appreciate your services as I do; for, as I authorized the system and put on you the work of organization and practical operation, I naturally observed your action with much anxiety. I saw what difficulties you encountered and overcame, amid predictions of failure and impeachments both of motive and conduct which hardly any other man could or would have endured. My own faith at times almost entirely gave way. Nothing enabled me to persevere but your perseverance.

Looking back now, and seeing what great benefits have been secured to our country, I greatly rejoice that, though sometimes much discouraged, I did not give up. Not many, it is true, will ever understand what has been done; but the work is there, and a few know it.

The greatest part-by far the greatest part-is yours, and your best reward is consciousness. But I trust that consciousness will not be your only reward. I still hope that your services will be suitably acknowledged by Congress and the Government. Were I yet Secretary you should at least have as much honor as a Secretary's report can give.

S. P. CHASE.

Sincerely your friend, SPENCER M. CLARK, Esq., Chief First Division National Currency Bureau, Treasury Department.

Mr. SUMNER. I understand there is now on the table a message from the President in answer to a resolution passed by the Senate the other day

relating to certain conferences with rebels. I ask that the present measure be informally laid aside, and that the message be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FoSTER in the chair.) The business before the Senate can be laid aside only by unanimous consent. The Chair hears no objection; it will be laid aside, informally, and the message read.

CONFERENCES WITH REBELS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States:

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 8th instant, requesting information concerning recent conversations or communications with insurgents under executive sanction, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred. FEBRUARY 10, 1865.

To the President:

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, February 10, 1865.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate of the 8th instant, requesting "the President of the United States, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interests, to furnish to the Senate any information in his possession concerning recent conversations or communications with certain rebels, said to have been under executive sanction, including communications with the rebel Jefferson Davis, and any correspondence relating thereto," has the honor to report that the Senate may properly be referred to a special message of the President bearing upon the subject of the resolution and transmitted to the House this day. Appended to this report is a copy of an instruction which has been addressed to Charles Francis Adams, Esq., envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, and which is the only correspondence found in this Department touching the subject referred to in the resolution. Respectfully submitted.

No. 1258.]

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON CITY, February 7, 1865. SIR: It is a truism that in times of peace there are always instigators of war. So soon as war begins, there are citizens who impatiently demand negotiations for peace. The advocates of war, after an agitation, longer or shorter, generally gain their fearful end, though the war declared is not unfrequently unnecessary and unwise. So peace agitators in time of war ultimately bring about an abandonment of the conflict, sometimes without securing the advantages which were originally expected from the conflict.

The agitators for war in time of peace, and for peace in time of war, are not necessarily, or perhaps ordinarily, unpatriotic in their purposes or motives. Results alone determine whether they are wise or unwise. The treaty of peace concluded at Gaudalupe Hidalgo was secured by an irregular negotiator under the ban of the Government. Some of the efforts which have been made to bring about negotiations, with a view to end our civil war, are known to the whole world, because they have employed foreign as well as domestic agents. Others, with whom you have had to deal confidentially, are known to yourself, although they have not publicly transpired. Other efforts have occurred here which are known only to the persons actually moving in them and to this Government. I am now to give for your information an account of an affair of the same general character, which recently received much attention here, and which doubtless will excite inquiry abroad.

A few days ago, Francis P. Blair, Esq., of Maryland, obtained from the President a simple leave to pass through our military lines, without definite views known to the Government. Mr. Blair visited Richmond, and on his return he showed to the President a letter which Jefferson Davis had written to Mr. Blair, in which Davis wrote that Mr. Blair was at liberty to say to President Lincoln that Davis was now, as he always had been, willing to send commissioners if assured they would be received, or to receive any that should be sent; that he was not disposed to find obstacles in forms. He would send commissioners to confer with the President with a view to a restoration of peace between the two countries if he could be assured they would be received. The President thereupon, on the 18th of January, addressed a note to Mr. Blair, in which the President, after acknowledging that he had read the note of Mr. Davis, said that he was, is, and always should be, willing to receive any agents that Mr. Davis or any other influential person, now actually resisting the authority of the Government, night send to confer informally with the President with a view to the restoration of peace to the people of our one common country. Mr. Blair visited Richmond with this letter, and then again came back to Washington. On the 29th [ultimo] we were advised from the camp of Lieutenant General Grant that Alexander II. Stephens, R. M. T. Hunter, and John A. Campbell were applying for leave to pass through the lines to Washington as peace commissioners to confer with the President. They were permitted by the Lieutenant General to come to his headquarters to await there the decision of the President. Major Eckert was sent down to meet the party from Richmond at General Grant's headquarters. The major was directed to deliver to them a copy of the President's letter to Mr. Blair, with a note to be addressed to them and signed by the major, in which they were directly informed that if they should be allowed to pass our lines they would be understood as coming for an informal conference upon the basis of the aforenamed letter of the 18th of January

to Mr. Blair. If they should express their assent to this condition in writing, then Major Eckert was directed to give them safe conduct to Fortress Monroe, where a person coming from the President would meet them. It being thought probable, from a report of their conversation with Lieutenant General Grant, that the Richmond party would in the manner prescribed accept the condition inentioned, the Secretary of State was charged by the President with the duty of representing this Government in the expected informal conference. The Secretary arrived at Fortress Monroe in the night of the 1st day of February. Major Eckert met him in the morning of the 2d of February with the information that the persons who had come from Richmond had not accepted in writing the condition upon which he was allowed to give them conduct to Fortress Monroe. The major had given the same information by telegraph to the President at Washington. On receiving this information the President prepared a telegram directing the Secretary to return to Washington. The Secretary was preparing at the same moment to so return, without But at this waiting for instructions from the President. juncture Lieutenant General Grant telegraphed to the Secretary of War, as well as to the Secretary of State, that the party from Richmond had reconsidered and accepted the conditions tendered them through Major Eckert; and General Grant urgently advised the President to confer in person with the Richmond party. Under these circumstances the Secretary, by the President's direction, remained at Fortress Monroe, and the President joined him there on the night of the 24 of February. The Richmond party was brought down the James river in a United States steam transport during the day, and the transport was anchored in Hampton Roads.

On the morning of the 3d, the President, attended by the Secretary, received Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell on board the United States steam transport River Queen, in Hampton Roads. The conference was altogether informal. There was no attendance of secretaries, clerks, or other witnesses. Nothing was written or read. The conversation, although earnest and free, was calm and courteous and kind on both sides. The Richmond party approached the discussion rather indirectly, and at no time did they either make categorical demands, or tender formal stipulations or absolute refusals. Nevertheless, during the conference, which lasted four hours, the several points at issue between the Government and the insurgents were distinctly raised, and discussed fully, intelligently, and in an amicable spirit. What the insurgent party seemed chiefly to favor was a postponement of the question of separation, upon which the war is waged, and a mutual direction of efforts of the Government, as well as those of the insurgents, to some extrinsic policy or scheme for a season, during which passions might be expected to subside, and the armies be reduced, and trade and intercourse between the people of both sections resumed. It was suggested by them that through such postponement we might now have immediate peace, with some not very certain prospect of an ultimate satisfactory adjustment of political relations between this Government and the States, section, and people now engaged in conflict with it.

This suggestion, though deliberately considered, was nevertheless regarded by the President as one of armistice or truce, and he announced that we can agree to no cessation or suspension of hostilities except on the basis of the disbandment of the insurgent forces and the restoration of the national authority throughout all the States in the Union. Collaterally, and in subordination to the proposition which was thus announced, the anti-slavery policy of the United States was reviewed in all its bearings, and the President announced that he must not be expected to depart from the positions he had heretofore assumed in his proclamation of emancipation and other documents as these positions were reiterated in his last annual message. It was further declared by the President that the complete restoration of the national authority everywhere was an indispensable condition of any assent on our part to whatever form of peace might be proposed. The President assured the other party that while he must adhere to these positions, he would be prepared, so far as power is lodged with the Executive, to exercise liberality. Its power, however, is limited by the Constitution; and when peace shall be made Congress must necessarily act in regard to appropriations of money and to the admission of representatives from the insurrectionary States. The Richmond party were then informed that Congress had on the 31st ultimo adopted by a constitutional majority a joint resolution submitting to the several States the proposition to abolish slavery throughout the Union; and that there is every reason to expect that it will be soon accepted by three fourths of the States, so as to become a part of the national organic law.

The conference came to an end by mutual acquiescence without producing any agreement of views upon the several matters discussed, or any of them. Nevertheless it is perhaps of some importance that we have been able to submit our opinions and views directly to prominent insurgents, and to hear them in answer, in a courteous and not unfriendly manner.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Regarding that message as the most important one that has ever been delivered to the Senate of the United States, I move that it be referred to a select committee of five members of this body, with leave to report in writing.

Mr. SHERMAN. It seems to me that motion had better lie over.

Mr. SUMNER. I think it will be enough if we order the message to be printed.

Mr. SHERMAN. Let it lie on the table. Mr. SUMNER. I move that it lie on the table, and be printed for the use of the Senate. Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to give notice that I shall make the motion I have indicated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unless objected to, the message will be laid on the table and printed for the use of the Senate. The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Does the Chair decide that my motion is out of order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not so decide. The motion to lay upon the table took precedence of it.

Mr. SAULSBURY. My motion is considered, then, as entered.

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to lay upon the table took precedence of it, and has been agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the bill of the Senate (S. No. 112) for the relief of the heirs of Almond D. Fisk. The message further announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. No. 145) for the relief of Major McFarland, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The message further announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the following enrolled bill and joint resolution, which thereupon received the signature of the President pro tempore of the Senate:

A bill (H. R. No. 431) for the relief of Solomon Wadsworth; and

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 106) providing for the compilation of a Congressional Directory at each session.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 145) for the relief of Major McFarland, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed 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 pending question being on the amendment of the Committee on Finance, on page 39, line nine hundred and forty-nine, after the word "dollars" to strike out the following proviso:

Provided, That no further expenditures shall be made for the experimental system of hydrostatic printing by the Treasury Department until such experiments shall have been definitely authorized by law, and a distinct appropriation made therefor.

Mr. GRIMES. I think it very desirable that we should have accurate information on this sub

ject, and therefore I want to draw a little more from the Senator from New Hampshire, who has investigated the subject. I want to know whether the Senator from New Hampshire includes in his statement with regard to the expense of printing the expense of the clerical force in the bureau ? Mr. CLARK. It includes everything. I have the figures here:

"The payment and expenses of the division from the day It was first started until the 27th day of June, 1864, was reported to Congress by my predecessor on the latter date, and amounted to $660,075 78. This report was printed, and will be found on page 45 of the report of the special committee of the first session of the present Congress. The payments and expenses since that period have been $394,921 27."

If the Senator will add these sums together, I think he will find them to amount to $1,054,937 05. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have another amendment to offer on this subject as a separate and distinct amendment. It is to insert on page 39, line nine hundred and forty-nine, after the word "dollars" the following proviso:

Provided, That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to examine and adjust the accounts of Stewart Gwynne for printing presses, machinery, material, and labor furnished and supplied to the Treasury Department, and for expenditures under the authority of the Secretary, and to report to him such sum as may be equitably due said Gwynne: Provided further, That for items furnished or supplied under contract no greater sum than the contract price shall be allowed: And provided further, That before any payment shall be made, the said Stewart Gwynne shall, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, fully convey and secure to the United States the right to use said presses, and any additional number thereof, with their

machinery and future improvements, in the Treasury building or any other buildings directed by the Secretary for any and all printing the Government may desire for its own use and purposes.

Mr. GRIMES. I raise the point of order that I raised yesterday, that this amendment makes provision for the payment of a private claim supposed to be held by Stewart Gwynne against the Government.

Mr. SHERMAN. The point of order is not well taken, because the amendment does not make provision for a payment. It does not direct the payment, nor even an award.

I wish to say in regard to this amendment that I offer it really for the protection and at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury. I have no particular desire that the amendment be adopted. I do not think it is susceptible to the objection made by the honorable Senator; nor do I see any objection to it. The amendment does not make an appropriation. It does not direct the money to be paid out of this fund. It simply restricts and limits the power of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury may now pay Stewart Gwynne, or anybody else, for work done in this Printing Bureau out of the general fund; but this amendment provides that before he shall pay it the account shall pass through the surveillance of the proper officers of the Treasury Department, and that the Secretary shall not pay it until Stewart Gwynne shall execute a proper release of his patent; so that it is really a restriction of the power of the Secretary to pay this money which he can pay under the law. The amendment itself does not direct the Secretary to pay it, nor does it even authorize the Secretary to pay the money. That he can do under the general provisions of law under the appropriation as it now stands. The Secretary simply desires this amendment so that he may send this matter to the proper accounting officers and have it properly investigated and have the records kept there, and that he may demand of Stewart Gwynne a proper release to the Government of the patents, which are really inventions made by officers of the Government or agents of the Government in the Treasury building. It therefore limits the power of the Secretary, instead of extending it. Nor is the amendment for the benefit of Stewart Gwynne; it is rather for the benefit and protection of the Secretary and for the protection of the Treasury. I do not care myself anything about the amendment.

Mr. GRIMES. I only raise this point of order that we may have it settled hereafter for my own government and the government of the Senate. I think the amendment is manifestly within the rules. It directs that the Secretary of the Treasury shall examine these accounts-and then there is a negative pregnant: he shall not pay unless certain things are done; which is just as much as to say he shall pay if those things are done. It is a parliamentary question, which I am willing to submit to the decision of the Chair; and I shall be satisfied with the decision of the Senate, let it be whatever it may. I shall know hereafter how to draft amendments; that is all.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FOSTER.) Upon the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio the Senator from Iowa raises a point of order that it is to pay a private claim, and under the rules of the Senate an amendment cannot be made upon an appropriation bill to pay a private claim. The Chair will submit the question of order for the decision of the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Presiding Officer will decide the question. It is the duty of the Presiding Officer to decide it. I shall be perfectly satisfied, whichever way he decides it; and I think the Senator from Iowa will be too.

Mr. GRIMES. Certainly.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not think it of sufficient importance to take the sense of the Senate upon it.

and therefore is disposed to submit the question to the Senate.

Mr. GRIMES. Let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. POMEROY. It occurred to me when this matter was before the Senate yesterday that this amendment was in the nature of a restriction or

limitation. It is certainly not an appropriation, and, technically speaking, it does not come within the rule. It simply provides the manner in which payment either shall or shall not be made, and in that view of the case I was very clear that the amendment as submitted by the Committee on Finance was certainly in order, and not against the 30th rule of the Senate.

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to state that, as I understand it, the only question now before us is whether the Secretary of the Treasury had the authority under any preceding law to authorize this sort of work to be done in the Treasury Department. I cannot have any doubt about that. He had an ample authority to cause these notes to be printed, and to be printed in the Treasury Department. I do not doubt that the Secretary of the Treasury had authority to make these experiments upon these hydrostatic presses. The propriety, the policy, the expediency of so doing are altogether different questions. Whether the Secretary of the Treasury did right or not is another question. Whether he could not have saved money by letting the hydrostatic presses alone, and printing upon the old style of press, is quite a different thing from the one that is now be fore us. The only question is whether he had authority to do this thing. I think we cannot avoid paying for these presses, because this individual, Gwynne, was authorized to put them there. If the Secretary of the Treasury had the power to make the contract, he having made the contract or authorized it, we are under obligations to pay for them, and I think justice would require that we should pay for them. I do not regard it as settling a private claim. I think the authority ex. isted by law in the Secretary to do this work. I may be mistaken, and viewing it in that light cannot but agree and consent to the payment of the claim.

Mr. GRIMES. This is precisely such a claim as we are referring every day to the Court of Claims. There is not a case that has come before the Senate during this session that is not in some way or other connected with or based upon some law. A man says that by the authority of law somebody has entered into a contract with him, and that contract has not been complied with; and we send his case to the Court of Claims. There is not any doubt, I suppose, but what the Secretary of the Treasury had, under a general appropriation bill, authority generally to make certain printing, and under that authority he has gone and contracted, or authorized somebody to contract, with Stewart Gwynne for certain hydrostatic presses, which the Government has been using; but is that the kind of a law upon which a claim is to be based that does not come within the rule of the Senate? I understand that that rule applies to a case like this: that where there is a positive, unqualified law specifying the amount that is due to a man, it is competent for us to insert it upon an appropriation bill; but I appre hend the chairman of the Committee on Claims has not got a case in his possession to-day referred to the Committee on Claims that is not based just as much on a law, or a contract with the Govment, expressed or implied, as this claim. As I said before, I am not particular as to how the Senate decide the question. It is a precedent that is to be followed during the balance of this session; that is all.

As to its not being an appropriation, as suggested by the Senator, there is not any more doubt about that than there is that I stand here. The section goes on and provides that the accounts shall be adjusted by the Secretary of the Treas

things be done. Is there a man here that ever read Blackstone, or that understands the rudiments of the English language, or that knows anything about logic, that does not know that that is just as much as to say, if those things are done the payment shall be made. Is not that what all school-boys know as a negative pregnant? And are we to be told that this is not an appropriation? It is just as much an appropriation as if it was

said in express terms that $38,000 should be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of the Treasury to Stewart Gwynne.

Mr. HENDERSON. In my view of this matter, the Secretary of the Treasury has full power to adjust this claim. As was very properly stated, however, by the Senator from New Hampshire, yesterday, the Secretary desires that the claim be settled not by him, and he seems to think authority is given to him alone to settle it under the former laws. He wants it to go before the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, and he thinks this amendment will send it before the accounting officers, and it can there be adjusted like any other claim. He does not wish to assume the responsibility of settling it himself, and he does not conceive that the previous laws on the subject authorize it to go before the accounting officers. I understand that that is all.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, whether this amendment shall be received, on a point of order being made that it is to pay a private claim.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 27, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Clark, Conness, Doolittle, Farwell, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Nesmith, Nye, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wilson, and Wright -27.

NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Grimes, Harlan, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilkinson-6.

ABSENT-Messrs. Carlile, Chandler, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Foot, Foster, Hale, Harding, Harris, Hicks, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Powell, Richardson, and Van Winkle-18.

So the point of order was not sustained.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is received; and the question now is on the adoption of the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have another amendment to offer from the Committee on Finance. It is to insert as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide temporary accommodations for the State Department, and for the accommodation of such of the clerks of the Treasury Department as cannot be accommodated in the present building, the sum of $25,000 is hereby appropriated. And the Secretary of the Interior is hereby required to furnish suitable rooms in the Patent Office building for the accommodation of the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, clerks, and messengers in his office; and for the purpose of furnishing and fitting up such rooms the sum of $5,000 is hereby appropriated. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am directed by the Committee on Finance to move as a further amendment on page 40, line nine hundred and fifty-six, to insert before the word "act" the words "internal revenue, so that the clause will read:

For procuring dies, stamps, adhesive stamps, paper, printing forms and regulations, advertising, and other exPenses of carrying into effect the internal revenue act of 30, 1864, $1,100,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. On the same page, line nine hundred and sixty-one, I am directed by the same committee to insert, after the word "same," the words" in the office of the Comptroller of the Currency," so that the clause will read:

For paper, special dies, and the printing of circulating notes, and expenses necessarily incurred (including ex press charges) in procuring the same, in the office of the Comptroller of the Currency, $675,500.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am also instructed by the Committee on Finance to offer as a new section what is called the deficiency bill. It is scarcely worth while to read it. It is precisely the bill as it has been agreed upon by both Houses, with the exception of the disputed clause about the extra compensation to the clerks and employés of the other House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reading of the proposed amendment will be dispensed with unless called for by some Senator.

Mr. SUMNER. I have an amendment to offer. Mr. CLARK. I desire to make a report from the committee of conference on the deficiency bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no objection be made, the report will be received at this time.

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. CLARK. I submit the following report

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment to the bill of the House (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. T. STEVENS,

G. H. PENDLETON,
J. S. MORRILL,

Managers on the part of the House.
DANIEL CLARK,

JAMES W. GRIMES, GEORGE READ RIDDLE, Managers on the part of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question will be on agreeing to the report of the commitNo recommendation is made by the committee, but they simply report the fact of their disagreement.

tee.

Mr. CLARK. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendment to the House bill; and, Mr. President, if I may be pardoned in taking up the time of the Senate, I desire, for the purpose of bringing this matter before the country more directly than it is, to make a few remarks upon the report.

The only disagreement upon the bill is upon the provision inserted by the House of Representatives appropriating $38,000 out of the contingent fund to pay a gratuity to the clerks and employés of the House.

Mr. CONNESS. In violation of law.

Mr. CLARK. In violation of law, as is suggested by the Senator from California. From the year 1849 to the year 1858 there grew up a practice in one House and the other House of paying toward the end of the session, or at the close of the session, a gratuity to the employés of each House. The House of Representatives, or the Senate, as the case might be, would pass a resolution and pay twenty per cent. extra compensation to the employés of that House. Then the employés of the other House would solicit the same gratuity to them; and the result would be that each House would pass a resolution for a gratuity of twenty per cent. That practice went on until the year 1858, when Congress passed a law that it should not continue any further. That law will be found in the eleventh volume of the Statutes, page 326, and is in these words:

"SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That no part of the appropriations which may be at any time made for the contingent expenses of either House of Congress shall be applied to any other than the ordinary expenditures of the Senate and House of Representatives, nor as extra allowance to any clerk, messenger, or attendant of the said two Houses, or either of them, nor as payment or compensation to any clerk, messenger, or other attendant of the said two Houses, or either of them."

After that I think neither House attempted to make such a gratuity to their employés until, at the last session, the House passed a resolution of that kind. When that resolution came to the accounting officers of the Treasury, if not before, it was refused a passage. I think the Clerk of the House did not pay it, but submitted it to the Treasury Department, and was told it could not pass there; and therefore it was not paid. Now, the House, in order to make an appropriation for that gratuity, have appended an amendment upon the deficiency bill. They put it on a former deficiency bill. The Senate rejected it. It went back to the House, and they refused to concur in the amendment of the Senate. It came back here, and a committee of conference was appointed, which disagreed. The Senate agreed to that report, and insisted upon its amendment with great unanimity. Another committee of conference was appointed, and they disagreed. The Senate still insisted, and finally voted, with great unanimity, to adhere to its amendment to the deficiency bill; and the House of Representatives having previously voted to adhere, the deficiency bill failed.

Thereupon the House of Representatives introduced and passed another deficiency bill, and it contained the distinct provision that $38,000 should be appropriated for this precise object, with a little difference in the phraseology. The Senate struck it out. It went back to the House for their approval, and they disagreed to the amendment of the Senate. It is in this view that I desire to call the attention of the Senate and the country to the position of the matter, because the House attempted to cast the odium, if there be any, of the failure of the deficiency bill upon the Senate. I

"Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I ask the gentleman's attention to one fact. I understand from the Secretary of War that at the present time not a single dollar can be expended from his Department for the sick and wounded soldiers in our hospitals because of the delay in the passage of this bill.

"Mr. STEVENS. So far as that subject is concerned, I look upon the action of the Senate as an atrocity."

After the deficiency bill had failed in the House by the disagreement between the two

Mr. JOHNSON. Was that said in debate? Mr. CLARK. That was in the debate reported in the Globe; and I do not desire, and am- not willing, that it should go out to the country without being challenged. I desire to bring the attention of the country to the precise position of the fact.

Here was a large deficiency in the War Department, and in other Departments, of over one hundred million dollars needed by the Government to carry on the purposes of the Government and put down this rebellion. The soldiers were unpaid; the men in the hospitals were unpaid. The bill had gone to both Houses and had failed, because we could not agree upon this point; and then the House of Representatives-I shall not be charged with speaking with any discourtesy of the House of Representatives, because I mean to confine my remarks to what is reported in the Globe-passed another bill with precisely the same provision in it on which we had disagreed; they put into it a provision which they knew had defeated the bill; and then, because the Senate would not assent to a provision that was contrary to law and give a gratuity of twenty per cent. to the clerks and messengers of the House; because they would not willingly consent to do that, the action of the Senate is charged before the country as an "atrocity!" Then this report goes on to say:

"If the sick and wounded soldiers are not provided for the blame should justly rest with the Senate."

The sick and the wounded soldiers cannot be provided for if they do not put into the deficiency bill providing for them a provision to give $38,000 gratuity to the clerks and messengers of the other House. There is no difference of opinion between us; we have agreed to every provision and every deficiency for the sake of the wounded soldier; but because the Senate will not consent that $38,000 shall be given to these employés, who, in my judgment, are paid for what they do as well as any other emplyoyés

Mr. GRIMES. It is an attempt to take it from the sick and wounded soldiers and pay it to these employés.

Mr. CLARK. As is said by the Senator from Iowa, it is taking so much away from the sick and wounded soldiers. But, I say, because we will not assent to what is contrary to law, and in conformity to very bad practice, which both Houses of Congress agreed to cut up and remove, the action of the Senate is charged before the country as "an atrocity." I hope I may be permitted to say here further that, when the vote shall be taken, we shall put the deficiency bill upon the legislative bill, and let us see if we cannot make provision for the sick and wounded soldiers.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is moved that the Senate insist upon its disagreement to the House bill called the deficiency bill and ask for a further conference.

Mr. CLARK. That was not a part of my motion. I moved only to insist; I did not ask for another committee. I am willing that the motion should be simply to insist, and let the House take action on the question whether we shall have another committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is that the Senate further insist upon its amendment striking out a portion of the House bill. The motion was agreed to.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire to enter a privileged motion. I move a reconsideration of the vote by which Senate bill No. 392, relative to a bridge across the Ohio river at Louisville, was passed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion will be entered.

Mr. POWELL. I would inquire in regard to the rule, whether if I allow the motion to be