Mr. HOWE. Well, sir, you have a statement of the force employed in the Second Auditor's office, and there are no temporary elerks mentioned there.

Mr. EDMUNDS. But if my friend will permit me, I suggest to him that the Blue Book is the register of the regular employés under the law of the Government. The statute gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, whenever the exigencies of the public service require it, to employ additional force. They do not appear in the Official Register as the regular employés of the Department at all. There is the difference.

Mr. HOWE. I understood you to say something like that some time ago, but when you passed the book over into my hands you withdrew that statement, and you rested your decla ration upon the proposition that there was no such force in the Second or Third Auditor's office.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That was all that was required for that purpose.

Mr. HOWE. We had the same purpose under consideration then that we have now. I say there are both additional and temporary clerks enumerated there in that Blue Book that the Senator has in his hand.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Where else except in the Treasurer's office do you find any there?

Mr. HOWE. I did not know there were any in the Treasurer's office. There are in the Secretary's office, and there are in some other offices; I cannot now specify them. But I now call attention to the Register's office. In that book the force is stated at five fourth-class clerks, thirteen third-class clerks, nineteen second-class clerks, and five first-class clerks in the Register's office. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. PATTERSON] produced another official statement last night to the effect, I think, that thirteen male clerks and over one hundred-I believe one hundred and seventeen-female clerks had been employed in the Register's office since October last. That was read here in the hearing of the chairman of the Committee on Finance. Nobody disputed it; so I did not. The only explanation I heard of it was that the Register had probably been dismissing a large number of clerks and employing these in their places.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator did not hear the explanation I made.

Mr. HOWE. No; I did not hear the explanation of the Senator, and I am very sorry that I did not. If it is capable of explanation I have no doubt the Senator explained it, or tried to do so. The explanation which I did hear, however, did not seem satisfactory to me, because that very statement contained the number of clerks who had been dismissed and who had died, and they were less than a dozen.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The explanation is simply this: there is a very large arrearage of business in the Register's office, particularly in relation to coupons. Those coupons all have to be examined and all have to be registered. There are some millions of them behindhand now. It is very important that they should be examined at the time the coupons are paid, that the work should be brought up, because, after two or three years mistakes in those matters cannot be corrected. Therefore it was thought advisable to employ an additional force, particularly of women, to do that work, in order to bring up the work that was so largely in arrear, and it is absolutely required by the public interests. With that view a large number of persons were employed. As soon as the work is brought up, of course the force will be reduced; but it is absolutely indispens able that that work should be brought up. I happened to meet the Register this morning and mentioned the subject to him. He told me that if there was any office-room where they could be accommodated, he deemed the work so very important (and I have no doubt he is correct about it) that he should like to employ one hundred more, in order to bring it up as soon as possible; that the public safety with regard to all those matters absolutely required

that the work should be brought up as speedily as possible, so that they might examine the coupons day by day.

business.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. Two million dollars.

Mr. HOWE. I think it was the same the year before. I never have understood that they had reported a surplus. I believe they pretend to have spent the whole appropriation right along, and they wanted the same appropriation this year, $2,000,000, but I think it is reduced in the bill to $1,500,000. About that business this ought to be remembered, that your printing was pretty much concluded; you had got out the maximum of your notes and your bonds, and you wanted some new bonds printed, and some new notes for the purpose of transfer and to replace loss and damage, but that printing could not amount to anything like the printing which we had to provide for during the war. The counting of your coupons could not have required any more help this year than the year before, and I do not understand how it is that this accumulation happens. Having $2,000,000, all they asked for the year before, and having spent it, and having only $2,000,000 the present year to spend, I do not see why the work for the year before must not necessarily have been done, and why the work of this year charged upon the appropriation of the current year, $2,000,000, should have been any more than the business of the year. So I think the Register is mistaken in supposing that this large increase of women was made necessary a discovery detected for himself for the first time-to bring up the business that ought to have been done the year before, and that failed of being done the year before.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Will my friend from Wisconsin permit me to make a suggestion? Mr. HOWE. Certainly.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to assure my friend from Wisconsin about this coupon business, that the investigations with which I have been charged into the state of certain affairs in the Treasury have enabled me to know that, as a matter of fact, for more than a year past, there have been more than four million coupons-I mean four million distinct pieces of paper-in arrears in the bureau of the Register's office that counts and arranges the coupons and compares them with the reg ister of bonds in the books, to see that there are not duplicates, &c. Of course it must be obvious to my friend from Wisconsin, as to everybody else, that the proper administration of the business would require that they should be kept up by some proper means or other. I am not now speaking as to whether people have done their duty; but the business ought to be kept up. Mr. Moore, the gentleman in charge of that particular branch, has told me, in the course of my investigations, over and over

Mr. HOWE. Agreed.

Mr. SHERMAN. Now let us have the vote.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator from Ohio wants the vote immediately now, but he cannot get it until I have returned my thanks to the Senator from Vermont for putting into this case one fact.

Mr. SHERMAN. The reason I called for the vote was that this discussion has nothing to do with the point.

Mr. HOWE. My friend shall have the vote in due time; but I am obliged to the Senator from Vermont for putting into the case a fact. It is this fact, that the business in the Regis ter's office was in arrear; that there were four million pieces of paper uncounted. Mr. President, I am thrown back, then, on this conclusion that if you want the business of that office done, you must get it done in some other way than by appropriating money for it, because you have appropriated the money for counting these pieces of paper every year; $2,000,000 the current year, $2,000,000 the year before, and all they ask the present year is $2,000,000; that, they say, is sufficient to do the work, and they have had it right along, and the work is not done. Now, you must do something else besides appropriating money; you cannot get it done in that way. So that this fact, important and solemn as it is, does not go to justify the making of these great appropriations for help, because it does seem to establish to my mind the conclusion that the work done is not at all proportioned to the money appropriated.

But, sir, I did not mean to ransack the whole Treasury Department when I got up. The main thing I wished to say when I took the floor was this: that by this time the head of the Treasury Department should be able to tell us how much help he wanted in each of these bureaus to perform the regular annual recurring business of the bureau, and that by this time he should be able to tell us in what bureaus there was an accumulation, an arrearage of business, and how much help he needed to close that out. Where those accumulations are I say give him all the help he may want to do the work; but I think I have evidence now that this extra help is employed not where those accumulations are, but where those accumulations are not. I want to see the necessities of each Department ascertained, measured by law, and provided for by law. I protest that it is wrong to put a large sum of money into the hands of any single individual to be appropriated and disposed of just as that individual chooses, even if the individual be the most honest man there is in the world. It is an irresponsible authority that you propose by this amendment to place once more in the hands of the Secretary to dispose of $150,000 just as he pleases. The pretext is that it is needed for help; but getting it into his hands, he may appropriate it for help honestly; but suppose he should not? If he be not an honest man, he has authority to put it all into the hands of one man or divide it among a dozen; he can pay $1,000 a year or $100 a year or $20,000 a year, as he pleases. That is what he can do, I think.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The law provides the salaries.

Mr. HOWE. The law does not provide for the appointment of any one of these men. This is so much, $150,000 in a gross sum, put into his hands to employ help, temporary clerks.

Mr. FESSENDEN. And the law provides what those clerks shall receive, according to their classification.

Mr. HOWE. The law provides that in each of these bureaus a certain number of clerks ranking as class four shall have $1,800 salary, and a certain number ranked as class three shall have $1,600; and when it has gone through with the four classes the law is silent and has said all it has got to say. If the Senator from Maine will examine the statute he will find that it does not meet his expectations at all. I think this money-this suggestion may be called a suspicion, but I think the Senate will confirm me in this much of suspicionthis $150,000 will be, a part of it, appropriated to increasing the compensation

Mr. FESSENDEN. Not at all; it cannot be.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator says it will not be done.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It was done in the last law, but cannot be now.

Mr. HOWE. I will take the Senator's guarantee on that point, but I had supposed it would be appropriated in that way, and I hope that he will not give any bonds or make any positive assurance that it shall not be. The Senator's opinion on that point does not change my judgment as to the necessity of regulating the disposition of these large sums of money wherever you put them into the hands of any man, be he honest or otherwise.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 27, nays 14; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cattell, Cole, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Johnson, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sumner, Van Winkle, Vickers, Wade, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Conness. Drake, Ferry, Howe, McCreery, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Stewart, Tipton, and Trumbull-14.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Dixon, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson. Hendricks, Howard, Morton, Norton, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, Sprague, Thayer, and Willey-15.

So the amendment was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had concurred in the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 236) granting a pension to John Q. A. Keck, late a private in the third Missouri cavalry; and the bill (H. R. No. 347) to amend "An act to divide the State of Illinois into two judicial circuits," approved February 13, 1855.

BILL INTROduced.

Mr. CONKLING asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 568) to provide for the erection of a building for a post office and the United States courts in the city of New York; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, and ordered to be printed.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House had signed the enrolled bill (H. R. No. 365) constituting eight hours a day's work for all laborers, workingmen, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

SOUTHERN STATES-VETO.

The message further announced that the President of the United States having returned with his objections the bill (H. R. No. 1058) to admit the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to representation in Congress, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, the House had, in conformity with the Constitution, proceeded to reconsider the bill, and having passed the same by a two-thirds vote, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, transmitted it, with the President's objections, to the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now offer the first of

the series of amendments of the Committee on Finance, which the Secretary has in printed form.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Before proceeding with the Senator's amendments, as the bill will manifestly take time, and the veto which has just come from the other House is in reference to a bill that it is very important should become a law at once if at all, as all the States embraced in that bill are being delayed, I move that the pending bill be laid aside informally, and that we take up the veto message and vote upon it. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The present bill will be laid aside informally if there be no objection. No objection being made, it is laid aside.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I ask to have the message read.

The message of the President was read, as follows:

To the House of Representatives:

In returning to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, a bill entitled "An act to admit the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, to representation in Congress," I do not deem it necessary to state at length the reasons which constrain me to withhold my approval. I will not, therefore, undertake, at this time, to reopen the discussion upon the grave constitutional questions involved in the act of March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary thereto, in pursuance of which it is claimed, in the preamble to this bill, these States have framed and adopted constitutions of State government. Nor will I repeat the objections contained in my message of the 20th instant, returning without my signature the bill to admit to representation the State of Arkansas, and which are equally applicable to the pending measure.

Like the act recently passed in reference to Arkansas, this bill supersedes the plain and simple mode prescribed by the Constitution for the admission to seats in the respective Houses of Senators and Representatives from the several States. It assumes authority over six States of the Union which has never been delegated to Congress, or is even warranted by previous unconstitutional legislation upon the subject of restoration. It imposes conditions which are in derogation of the equal rights of the States, and is founded upon a theory which is subversive of the fundamental principles of the Government. In the case of Alabama it violates the plighted faith of Congress by forcing upon that State a constitution which was rejected by the people, according to the express terms of an act of Congress requiring that a majority of the registered electors should vote upon the question of its ratification.

For these objections, and many others that might be presented, I cannot approve this bill,

and therefore return it for the action of Congress required in such cases by the Federal Constitution. ANDREW JOHNSON.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25, 1868.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on the passage of the bill (H. R. No. 1058) to admit the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to representation in Congress, the objectious of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I rise to say but a word on the veto message that has just been read. I am unwilling that the Senate shall take the vote on the bill to which it expresses the dissent of the President without declaring my hearty approval of it and my admiration of the wise, patriotic, and courageous statesman in this his last effort to stay the factious frenzy of Congress. With a calm but dauntless spirit he has kept his oath, to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of his country; and his many messages to Congress remonstrating against its infraction are of unsurpassed ability. No American statesman has demonstrated a stronger,

truer, or more steady devotion to his country, the great principles of the Constitution, and the Union of the States and the liberties of the people under it. No man possessed of so much patronage ever administered it with less of purpose for party or personal ends or more singly for the good of his country or passed freer from stain through all the temptations of power. His presidential career has been a continued struggle, calm and intrepid, to perform the duties of his great office amid unexampled difficulties, perils, and opposition; and not he, but others, are responsible for any failure.

His career, from the humblest origin through every gradation to the highest office, with much wise, able, and stern competition at every step, all of which he overcame, his great natural abilities, and a courage that never quailed in the presence of any trials or dangers, mark him strongly and distinctly as one of nature's great men. At the dawn of the rebellion he stood alone in the Senate the solitary representative of true allegiance to his country and her Constitution from the South, and the burning and tremendous denunciation of the inflamed mind and passion of eleven States burst upon him, but it moved him not. He was elected to the second office, and soon Providence and the Constitution devolved upon him the first. The party which elected him formed bold, unpatriotic and selfish schemes of ambition, and invited him to lead them. Still true to his country and her Constitution, the people and their liberties, lure which they had held up to him, and has he broke away from his party and the dazzling striven with steady, patriotic heroism to defeat their mad projects by opposing to them all the power with which he was invested. For this

they turned upon him with a relentless fury that has no parallel. He has not been sustained by the country as he should have been. His official career will soon close, but impartial history will write his life and services to be the noblest of the day; and it will be among the grand annals of mankind.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill notwithstanding the objections of the President of the United States.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 35, nays 8; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Colc, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-35.

NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Johnson, McCreery, Patterson of Tennessee, and Vickers-8.

ABSENT-Messrs. Anthony, Dixon, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, Norton, Pomeroy, Rice, Saulsbury, and Tipton-13.

question the yeas are 35 and the nays are 8. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this Two thirds of the members present having voted in the affirmative, the bill is passed notwithstanding the objections of the President.

LEGISLATIVE, ETC., APPROPRIATION BILL.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio to House bill No. 605 will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Insert as a new section:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That all acts or parts of acts authorizing the publication of the debates in Congress are hereby repealed from and after the 4th day of March next, and the joint Committee on Printing is hereby authorized and required to invite proposals for the publication of the actual proceedings and debates in Congress, upon a plan and specifications to be previously published by them, and shall also ascertain the cost of such publication by the Superintendent of Public Printing, and shall report as soon as practicable such proposals and estimate of cost, together with a bill to provide for the publication of the debates and proceedings of Con

gress.

Mr. SHERMAN. I ought to state to the Senate that this is in pursuance of an act passed March 2, 1867, which gives the two years' notice required by law to discontinue the arrangement relative to the publication of the Globe. After that notice was given it would

seem to have become the duty of the Committee on Printing to make provision for the publication of the debates; and I have conferred with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ANTHONY] on the subject. It is thought best to repeal all the laws relative to the publication, but we had not sufficient information to enable us to determine whether the work could be done cheaper or better by making a new arrangement with the Globe office, or by advertising for bids, or by printing the debates at the Public Printing Office. So the Committee on Finance concluded to report this section, which repeals all acts on the subject from and after the 4th of March next, and leaves to the Committee on Printing to report at the next session of Congress a plan for publishing the debates after that time, and we shall have the next session to consider and act on their plan.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I suggest whether it is worth while to repeal these laws about the publication of the Globe until we have made some other arrangement absolutely for the publication of the debates.

it.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is much better to do The present arrangement expires on the 4th of March, 1869, and it is important that the whole matter be swept away, so that the Committee on Printing shall have an open door to make the best arrangement they can.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I have no information on the subject.

Mr. TRUMBULL. This is an amendment which I have not had an opportunity to read. It appears to consist of several sections changing entirely the mode of the publication of the proceedings of Congress.

Mr. SHERMAN. Only one section. Mr. TRUMBULL. There are several sections printed here together, but perhaps the other sections are separate amendments. Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir; I propose to offer them separately.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I suppose it is not material whether the provision be in one section or in several sections. I saw that the amendment as printed had several sections in it, and I presumed they all related to this subject; but it seems that this matter is embraced in one section, by which the publication of the proceedings of Congress is to be changed from the mode that has been practiced for the last forty years.

Mr. SHERMAN. Not necessarily. Mr. TRUMBULL. "Not necessarily changed!" The provision is "that all acts and parts of acts authorizing the publication of the debates in Congress are hereby repealed." I should think that would necessarily change it.

sition introduced and sprung upon the Senate without any consideration or any opportunity to examine it, when a bill is under consideration which has passed one House and is here soon to be put upon its passage.

The Senator from Ohio tells us that he does not know that this amendment will work any change; he does not know whether the work can be done more cheaply at the Government Printing Office or not. Let me submit to him if it would not be advisable to make those inquiries and ascertain the facts before we repeal all the laws we have upon the subject. It seems to me it is starting out in the wrong way to begin by an absolute repeal of all existing laws for the publication of the debates of Congress, and that the better way would be to authorize the joint Committee on Printing to ascertain whether a more advantageous arrangement can be made for the publication of the debates, and not commence by repealing the laws and rely upon making some arrangement hereafter.

I am a little surprised that the Committee on Appropriations make no objection to general legislation upon this bill, because if this practice obtains I have in my charge, I think, as many as twenty bills that the Committee on the Judiciary have agreed to, and we should be very glad to have them passed, and I know of no place so good to put them in as this appropriation bill of my friend from Maine. They are all bills which ought to be passed, as the committee think. They have the sanction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and if the Senator from Maine consents to have this general legislation go on the bill we can make an omnibus bill that will do for all the legislation that all the committees have in charge.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We have just had one omnibus bill.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That was an omnibus bill, so called, but still the subjects of that bill had some analogy to each other.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Not much.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from Illinois has a charming way of making appeals to the Senate, but it sometimes requires a little patience to listen to him. According to the general run of the logic of the Senate it would appear that the Committee on Finance are in some way or other taking a snap judgment against somebody, that we are doing something that is terribly wrong, that we are springing something on the Senate. The Senator did not know the facts, or he would not have made such a declaration. A law passed on the 2d of March, 1867, provides as follows:

"That the notice required by the fourth section of the act entitled 'An act to pay in part for publishing the debates in Congress, and for other purposes,' approved July 4, 1861, is hereby given that Congress will, in two years from the close of the present Congross, abrogate the provisions of the first and second sections of said act."

Here is the notice required by the law, which abrogates the main portions of the arrangement on the 4th day of March next. The result of this repeal or modification of the contract is that on the 4th of March next there will be no provision of law by which the Globe can be published, and yet in this bill there are appropriations for the publication of the Globe during the whole of the next fiscal year.

Mr. SHERMAN. It is agreed, I believe, generally, and there is very little doubt, that the present rates are too high, that the present contract is unnecessarily burdensome to the public, and that we can make a better contract even with the publishers of the Globe. The Committee on Finance thought, therefore, we had better avail ourselves of the notice given last year, the law requiring it to be a two-years' notice to discontinue the present arrangement. Certainly we can make a better one, even with the publishers of the Globe; but I think, myself, from the examination I have given the subject, that the Globe had better be published at the Government Printing Office; but that is a matter on which I have not sufficient information to make any proposition now. By this amend ment the whole matter is referred to the proper tribunal, the joint Committee on Printing, who will have the next session of Congress to per-proved July 4, 1864. There is no contract fect a plan.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It was because I had not sufficient information, and I did not suppose the Senate had, that I was about to interpose an objection to the passage of such an important provision as this upon an appropriation bill. In the first place, it is very objectionable to introduce legislation on an appropriation bill, as we are often told by the Senator having charge of such bills. Here is a propo

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator refer me to the statute giving this notice?

Mr. SHERMAN. It is section eleven of the deficiency appropriation bill of last year. Mr. TRUMBULL. What is the act to which that refers?

Mr. SHERMAN. It refers to an act ap

between the publishers of the Globe and the United States; the whole arrangement is under provisions of law. Such was the condition of affairs. Here was an appropriation covering the whole of the next fiscal year. The result would be that if Congress should be convened at any time before the first Monday of December, 1869, there would be no provision for the publication of the Globe. Important elements of the contract with the Globe publishers would

have been repealed, and yet, under this bill, appropriations would continue for the publication of the Globe.

Under these circumstances, after full consultation with the Committee on Printing and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Finance undertook to provide for the publication of the debates of Congress. Instead of this being now sprung upon the Senate, it will be seen by looking at the printed amendment that the Committee on Finance reported it on the 2d of June and had it sent to the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Finance reported it after careful consideration; it has been considered by the Committee on Appropriations; and now, carrying out this notice of nearly a month, I have offered the amendment. There is nothing very remarkable about it. This is the appropriate place for it. I will say to the Senator from Illinois that every particle of legislation in regard to the Congressional Globe is in an appropriation bill, except the single case of a law reported by the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. ANTHONY,] which is referred to in the section giving the notice. The appropriations are in the appropriation bills, and all the laws and limitations upon the publication of the Globe are in the appropriation bills. This is the proper place for this provision. It comes up in the regular manner, and nobody is taken by surprise. It is not sprung upon anybody; it is done after full deliberation.

If we

All agree that we can make a better bargain for the publication of the Globe, and we can correct some abuses that have grown out of its publication. We can decrease largely the expenditure of public money for the publication of the debates of Congress. The question was, whether we should make a new contract with the publishers of the Globe, or whether we should invite bids to carry on the work on the same plan heretofore adopted, or whether it should be done at the Government Printing Office. This was a matter which the Committee on Finance did not undertake to decide. They undertook, however, to report this section repealing all laws authorizing the publication of the Globe from and after the 4th of March next, and leaving the subject of the manner of publishing the debates after that time to be settled hereafter on the report of the proper joint committee of the two Houses. That is all there is in the amendment. had undertaken to decide, as my friend from Rhode Island wished us to do, that it was better to publish the debates at the Government Printing Office, that might have been a cause of complaint; the Senator from Illinois might have said "the Committee on Finance do not know anything about printing, and we ought to have some better authority in regard to the subject of printing." The result was that we did not undertake to decide that question, but we simply provide that the appropriations made in this bill shall not be paid under the existing contract with the publishers of the Globe after the 4th of March next, and that al laws providing for the publication of the debates in the Globe shall cease at that time, and that the Committee on Printing shall devise some better mode of publishing them. I am now prepared to say that many propositions will be submitted from men perfectly competent to do the same work at a largely reduced expendi ture, and I have no doubt that the publishers of the Globe themselves will submit bids, when called for under the operation of this amendment, largely reducing the price they now receive; but the probability is, in my opinion, that the committee will find that we can do the whole work better at the Government Printing Office.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio is slightly mistaken as to the effect of the action of Congress a year ago, if it took place a year ago. I do not remember the precise date of the act to which he referred; but it was at the last Congress, I think. Mr. SHERMAN.

March 2, 1867.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator is mistaken

as to the effect of the action which took place at that time. The law under which the debates of Congress are published in the Globe required that two years' notice should be given before it should be abrogated, and all that Congress undertook to do in the appropriation act to which the Senator refers was to give that notice. It did not abrogate the contract with the Globe at all. We had an existing contract made under a law passed in 1864 which could not be abrogated except upon two years' notice, and the act of March 2, 1867, gave the notice by declaring

"That the notice required by the fourth section of the act entitled An act to pay in part for publishing the debates in Congress, and for other purposes,' approved July 4, 1864, is hereby given that Congress will, in two years from the close of the present Congress, abrogate the provisions of the first and second sections of said act.'

Now, two years from the close of the ThirtyNinth Congress in 1867 would be the 2d of March, 1869. Congress gave notice that they would then abrogate the contract. Now, then, the question is, shall we proceed now to abrogate it? We could not abrogate it without giving this notice. The object of the notice was to place ourselves in such a position that if we thought proper we could make some other arrangement. All that we have done is to give this two years' notice; we have done nothing more; so that the publishers of the Globe should not be taken by surprise by our action. It seems to me if the Senator would strike out the first three lines of his proposed amendment, so as not to repeal these laws at this time, it will be in our power to repeal them if we desire to do so.

Mr. EDMUNDS. How would it read then? Mr. TRUMBULL. It would read as follows: That the joint Committee on Printing is hereby authorized and required to invite proposals for the publication of the actual proceedings and debates in Congress, upon a plan and specifications to be previously published by them, and shall also ascertain the cost of such publication by the Superintendent of Public Printing, and shall report as soon as practicable such proposals and estimate of cost, together with a bill to provide for the publication of the debates and proceedings of Congress.

If we did that it would be in accordance with our notice, but at this time to repeal absolutely these laws it seems to me is striking in the dark.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator will see that this repeal does not take effect until after the 4th of March.

Mr. TRUMBULL. But it takes effect at that time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly, peremptorily. Mr. TRUMBULL. You may not want to repeal them. That is the very thing I object to. You repeal them before you get your information. What possible objection can the Senator from Ohio have to leaving out the first three lines of his proposed amendment and directing this committee to make these inquiries? We have got to act upon it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have said to the Senator that we have already ascertained, and it is an undisputed fact, that the Government may in several ways do better than the pres ent contract with the publishers of the Globe, may do better with the publishers of the Globe themselves. That is ascertained and agreed to. We debated the whole subject a year ago. Congress would have abrogated the arrangement then, on the day of the passage of this notice, but for the fact that two years' notice was required, and finally the Senator from Maine Mr. FESSENDEN] came to the conclusion that we could not abrogate it until after giving the notice, and he drew the section, I || believe, and it was finally passed.

Mr. TRUMBULL. According to the Senator's own amendment, other legislation will be necessary before we can provide for publishing the proceedings of Congress. That is one fact. When you adopt that other necessary legislation, why not then repeal existing laws? Why repeal existing laws now to take effect in futuro? We have got to legislate on the subject. The Senator from Ohio says he has the information already; but his amend

else let us dispense with that establishment and have it done by contract under such regulations that the money of the Government shall not be squandered. If my information is correct the whole thing could not be worse

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The amendment was agreed to.

ment provides for obtaining that information, because the committee is required to ascertain the cost of this work. We are not prepared to decide to-day, the Senator from Ohio is not prepared to decide to-day, whether it will be best to have the proceedings of Congress pub-managed than it is now. lished at the Government Printing Office or to let the work out by contract. He wants information on that subject, and has provided in this amendment for obtaining it. Now, the present mode of publishing the proceedings of Congress is in force, and is bound to be in || force until March, 1869. Between this time and March, 1869, the Senator from Ohio contemplates arranging some other system for publishing these proceedings. Why do you want to repeal at this time the provision relative to the existing mode of publication? What object is there in it? It may turn out that the present mode of publication is the very best we can get. Will it not be time enough to decide that when we get these other proposals? I move to amend the amendment by striking out after the word "that," in the first line, these words:

All acts or parts of acts authorizing the publication of the debates of Congress are hereby repealed from and after the 4th day of March next and the.

So that the section will simply require the joint Committee on Printing to ascertain the facts and report them to Congress, and then when we receive their report we can adopt such system as is thought to be best.

Mr. SHERMAN. I now offer from the Committee on Finance the amendment that is

printed as a third section. The second printed amendment has been superseded.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, as follows:

SEC. And be it further enacted, That section ten of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the approved March 2, 1867, shall not be so construed as year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,' to authorize the publication of any advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations by the newspapers in the District of Columbia, selected in accordance with the law, unless such advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations are delivered by the proper head of a Department to such newspaper for publication in accordance with law, and the rates of compensation for such printing shall not exceed the rates paid for similar printing under existing law.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word " "unless," in the ninth line, the words "such publication is deemed necessary by the proper head of a Department, nor unless."

Mr. EDMUNDS. I would not put that in. It is bad enough already.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will explain it pres

end of the amendment which the Clerk can read. The PRESIDENT protempore. The amend ment will be read as it is proposed to be amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I am glad that this amendment is brought forward. If we are to have a Government Printing Office at all it seems to me that we should there pub-ently. I desire, also, to add a clause at the lish the debates and proceedings of Congress. Would it not be as proper and as profitable to do this part of the public printing in the Government Printing Office as any other part, such as the printing of bills and the ordinary printing that we must have done? If there is any propriety in keeping a Government Printing Office at all, there is a propriety in having this printing done at that office. If it is better to have the debates and the proceedings of Congress printed by contract, it would certainly be better for the same reason to abolish the Government Printing Office altogether.

Now, sir, if I understand our printing system, it is a very loose one and a very remarkable one. A large part of the printing consists of the debates and proceeding of Congress. That we have done by contract. Then we have bills, reports, and matters of that sort printed at the Government Printing Office. That is a second establishment. Then we have a large printing establishment in the Treasury Department, and a very expensive one. That is a third establishment. I am told that there is also a printing establishment in the Interior Department, and that the printing of the Interior Department is a separate business from any of the printing that I have mentioned. I do not know whether the printing of the War Department is performed in the Government Printing Office or not. Can the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations inform me?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. That is done at the Government Printing Office.

Mr. MORTON. But the printing of the Interior Department is not, as I am informed; it is performed by an establishment in the In terior Department itself. Here are four distinct ways of having the public printing done. Now, Mr. President, if we have a public printing office at all, let us have all the public printing done there, and let that printing establishment be revised and reorganized so that the printing can be done cheaply and well. I believe that we can have all the Government printing done by contract, even at one third of the present cost. The system is loose. It is badly managed. We have three or four ways of printing where we should have but one. Let us do it all in the Government Printing Office; make it an establishment adequate for that purpose; see that it is well managed; or

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That section ten of an act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1867, shall not be so construed as to authorize the publication of any advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations by the newspapers in the District of Columbia, selected in accordance with the law unless such publication is deemed necessary by the proper head of a Department, nor unless such advertisements, notices, proposals, laws, or proclamations are delivered by the proper head of a Department to such newspaper for publication in accordance with law, and the rates of compensation for such printing shall not exceed the rates paid for similar printing under existing law. And no advertisement whatever in any newspaper published in the District of Columbia shall be paid for by any disbursing officer, and if paid shall not be allowed by any accounting officer unless published in pursuance of the several acts named in this section.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will explain the proposition in a few words. This bill contains several items making appropriations for advertising in newspapers. Under an act which was passed in 1866 provision was made for publishing in two newspapers in the District of Columbia all the Department advertisements. By a subsequent amendatory act in 1867 it was provided that all advertisements ordered by any head of a Department shall be published in those two newspapers. Two newspapers were selected in accordance with the law, the Daily Chronicle and the Evening Star, of this city. They claim the right to publish as Government advertisements all the advertisements published by the Government in any part of the United States. Thus, in the papers I have before me, there are advertisements of sod to be put on a fort in New Mexico; provisions to be supplied in Utah; post routes in Arizona; and a multitude of advertisements of that kind which certainly ought not to be pub. lished in Washington.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they now published here?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir. These accounts have been presented to the First Comptroller for adjudication, and he has ruled against them, ruled them out, and said it could not have been the intention of Congress to pro

vide for such a class of advertisements being published in the city of Washington.

Another clause of that second act provides for the publication of the laws. By general law the laws are published at a very low rate in two papers selected in each of the States; but by this law these two newspapers selected for the District of Columbia were authorized to publish the laws at not exceeding the rates paid by private individuals for advertisements. The result is, that in one case that was presented,one of the publishers of these city papers here charged the Government $1,500 for advertising postal routes in certain States, when the rate fixed by law as to other papers was $315. The Comptroller, when the case was brought before him, decided that it could not have been the intention of Congress to provide for the publication of all advertisements ordered by any head of a Department in Washington; nor could it have been the intention of Congress to provide for one rate of compensation for the publication in the States and for a rate several times as large in this city. These accounts are now suspended, and it will be necessary for Congress to pass on the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does this correct that practice?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir. The amendment has been carefully prepared with that view. It leaves these two papers to publish the advertisements, and requires the Departments to give them all the advertisements that are published at not higher than the rates now provided for by law; but it provides that no advertisements shall be published by them unless they are furnished to them by the proper head of Department.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Do I understand the Senator from Ohio to say it requires the head of a Department to give them all the advertisements?

Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir; it does not require the head of a Department to give them any advertisements. It does not authorize them to publish any, unless furnished by the head of a Department, and it prohibits the Government advertisements in any other papers in this District except the two designated by law. I do not know whether I have made myself understood; but that is the object of the amendment.

Mr. CONNESS. Right at this point, if the Senator will permit me before he takes his seat, I wish to suggest to him that the proposed amendment to the amendment goes further than that. It confers the discretion upon the heads of the proper Departments to withhold what advertisements they please. What is to hinder them from withholding all advertisements under that discretion, so construing it? That it would be an illegitimate construction I have no doubt; but with political feeling such as exists, what is to hinder them from exercising that discretion in a most damaging manner to a paper that they do not like?

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator from California will see that we have provided that the two papers which have been selected shall publish all the advertisements that are authorized to be published here.

Mr. CONNESS. I understand that.

Mr. SHERMAN. And then we leave to the heads of the Departments to say what advertisements shall be published. Somebody must decide that question. For instance, not to enlarge on this matter, I can read several advertisements that I have here which every

Mr. CONNESS. Let it be decided by the language of the law.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. If the Senator will allow me, I will suggest that I do not think it is a matter of discretion now. By law certain transactions are required to be advertised absolutely, beyond the discretion of anybody. For instance, proposals for stationery and for supplies of all kinds in the Departments are required to be advertised. That is not a matter of discretion; but the question is, how advertised? In what papers? By the act referred to in this amendment they are required to be advertised in two particular papers; so that I submit to the Senator from California there is no margin of discretion whatever, so far as that goes. The law requires certain advertisements to be made. Then it directs that they shall be published in these papers absolutely. Now, the Senator from Ohio says that in addition to those advertisements these papers have a practice of advertising for proposals which are not authorized by law to be made in these papers, but which are not forbidden, and which are advertised in different parts of the country; and in addition to that, they are in the habit of advertising proposals which are not submitted to them at all by the heads of Departments. That is what I understand him to say; and this amendment is to correct that abuse. If I am right in supposing that it is not a matter of discretion with the heads of Departments whether they will publish what is required to be published in these two papers, then it is clear that this proposition would not give these heads of Departments the discretion which the Senator from California supposes.

Mr. CONNESS. think the incorporation of the words proposed by the Senator from Ohio as an amendinent to the amendment will give that discretion; but I have already said that I did not think it could be legitimately so construed.

Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, the difficulty in this case appears to have arisen out of the act of March 2, 1867. Prior to that, in the act referred to in that act, the only advertise ments that were permitted to be published in the city of Washington were those that by preexisting laws were required to be published in this city. The act of 1866 declared:

"That all advertising, notices, and proposals for contracts for the Post Office Department, and all advertising, notices, and proposals for contracts for all the Executive Departments of the Government, required by law to be published in the city of Washington, shall hereafter be advertised by publication in the two daily newspapers in the city of Washington having the largest circulation, and in no others."

You will see that by the act of 1866 the Washington papers were only authorized to publish those notices that the law relating to that class of notices required to be published here. What those were I do not know; but we can obviously enough see that there are certain notices that ought to be published here and a great many others that ought not which would be perfectly useless here. Then when we come to the act of 1867, referring to this act of 1866 that I have read, the phraseology was changed, which led to this abuse, and was adopted in this form, the tenth section of the act of March 2, 1867, referred to in the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio:

"That all advertisements, notices, and proposals for contracts for all the Executive Departments of the Government, and the laws passed by Congress and executive proclamations and treaties, shall hereafter be advertised by publication in the two daily papers published in the District of Columbia now selected under the act of the first session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department," &c.

Thus it will be seen that the abuse we are speaking of grew up under the act of 1867, which seemed to declare on the face of it, referring to the two papers indicated by the act of 1866 as having the largest circulation, that there should be published therein every advertisement, every law, every publication, taking the terms of it, so that these papers claimed that if, as is said by the Senator

from Ohio, there is an advertisement for beef to supply the Army down in Arizona, they had the right to take it and publish it, when every body knows there is no beef fit to eat to be had in Washington, and no use of advertising for it here.

The difficulty, if there is any, about this amendment which is to correct this abuse, is that it is not stringent enough. It ought to be so confined as only to cover the class of cases that is referred to by the Senator from California and enacted in the act of 1866; that is to say, that class of cases where the existing law requires a publication positively in this city, and that in all others they shall not publish. I do not think the amendment goes quite far enough. There ought to be added to it a provision something like this: to insert after the word "proclamations," in the eighth line of the amendment, "and being required by law to be published in the District of Columbia," and then you will restore it to where it stood under the act of 1866, to which the Senator from California has alluded.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection to carry out the purpose. All we desired was to give to the newspapers selected by the Clerk of the House and by the law the publication of whatever has to be published in this District; but not to authorize or require by law the publication in this city of all the advertisements published throughout the United States. In order to show Senators the charactor of this business, I hold in my hand an advertisement for the sale of some stuff in Santa Fé published in this city. Here is a whole page of advertisements of mail routes, &c., in the far western Territories.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire how they get those advertisements? Did the Departments furnish them to the papers here? Mr. SHERMAN. No; they get them from the western papers.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Copy them out?

Mr. SHERMAN. I suppose so. I do not know where they get them; I did not inquire into that; but they get them and publish them, and present their bills, but the Comptrollers and the accounting officers hesitate about them. They have overruled them thus far; but the law is doubtful. I think the amendment as I have prepared it will accomplish the purpose that we all desire.

Mr. FESSENDEN. If they play such tricks as that I think we ought to select some other papers.

Mr. SHERMAN.

They will all do it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to move to amend the amendment of the Senator from Ohio by inserting after the word "proclamations," in line ten, the words "and being required by bia.' law to be published in the District of ColumThat carries us back to the foundation referred to in the act of 1866, to which the Senator from California has alluded; so that it will not permit the head of a Department to have anything published here except what the law already requires.

Mr. CONNESS. Nor prohibit it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It would prohibit it; but it only authorizes the head of a Department to deliver to these papers such advertisements as the law requires to be printed here. By looking at the act of 1866 it will be seen that it refers to existing legislation of various kinds, the details of which I am not familiar with, as fixing that which is to be published, and another class were to be published elsewhere. The act of 1867 intended undoubtedly to follow the act of 1866; but from the looseness of its phraseology it covered all classes of advertisements, and in its terms it certainly authorizes the publication here of everything. Now, if we limit the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, in what the heads of Departments shall deliver to them, to those advertisements that the law requires to be published in this District, just as the act of 1866, which is the foundation of all this, requires to be done, we shall be perfectly safe.