in a

ment. No one, I know, in this House can be more opposed to increasing the volume of the currency than I am. I concur fully in the remarks of the gentleman from lowa farthest from me, [Mr. PRICE,] so far as the disastrous influence upon the currency which an increase of its volume produces; but I say further, that the evil does not lie entirely or mainly with the issues of the Government currency, but beyond that, as much, or more, with the issues of the State banks. I am not in favor of entirely restricting the power of the Government to issue its own currency, time of war, like the present, although I am entirely opposed to the exercise of that power by the Secretary of the Treasury, except upon the most urgent necessity. As the gentleman from lowa nearest to me [Mr. KASSON] has well remarked, the time may arrive, as it has been in the past, when it may be absolutely and indispensably necessary for the carrying on of the finances of the Government that this power should not only be lodged in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, but occasionally and discreetly exercised. Mr. Chairman, I believe with him that the evils growing out of this expansion of the currency are incalculable. The high price of gold to-day rests upon two causes. The first cause is the increase of the volume of the currency, and the next the want of confidence in the ability of the Government to meet all its promises to pay. If all the capitalists of the country believed fully and beyond doubt that this rebellion would be suppressed and this Government reëstablished, then, sir, you would not find gold more than twenty per cent. above the lawful money of the country. But as it is, sir, that absolute and entire confidence does not exist, partly from fear of non-success and partly from fear of the action of the Government in allowing an increase of the volume of the currency, both national and State -an increase much more fearful in its effects from the action of State banks, sanctioned by the State Legislatures of the land, than from any other cause; and I hope that this Congress, before it adjourns, will tax out of existence all the State bank circulation of the country, and I hope that the power will be vested in the Secretary of the Treasury to issue legal-tender notes when it shall become absolutely necessary to carry on the finances of the Government. But I hope and believe that the Secretary of the Treasury will never exercise that power except upon the most urgent necessity, for I have very great confidence in that gentleman's judgment and discretion, and so believing, I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. DAWES. Will my colleague inform me why $100,000,000 of national currency does not inflate the currency just as much as $100,000,000 of State currency? It may not be so, but I would like to know why.

Mr. ALLEY. I will answer my colleague by saying that it does inflate the currency to just the same amount, but there is this difference: the Government not only saves the interest but has the control of the whole thing in its own hands, and if it is indispensable to the salvation of the Government that it should issue $100,000,000 of legaltender currency, as it has been obliged to do in the past, then I am in favor of it for the same reason that I was in favor of making the Government issues a legal tender as an uncontrollable necessity and choice of evils.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. SCOFIELD. I want to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if I understood him aright. If I understand his position, he is opposed to the issuing of any more legal-tender notes, but is in favor of a law to authorize their issue, just as our Democratic friends said here the other day on the constitutional amendment, they were all opposed to slavery but were equally opposed to its prohibition.

Mr. ALLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the exercise, as I said, of this power except upon the most urgent necessity. I was in favor of the passage of the legal-tender act, as I have said, as a matter of uncontrollable necessity, and upon no other ground. I am in favor now of conferring this power, because the time may arise when the very salvation of the Government depends on its exercise, and I would hold the Secretary of the Treasury responsible for a rigid adherence to this policy of decreasing rather than

increasing the volume of the currency, which he has proclaimed over and over again as being sound policy. I have the most undoubting confidence in the integrity and discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, and do not believe that he would, with this power given him, issue one dollar additional unless a necessity existed which was allcontrolling. And so believing, I am in favor of giving him the power; but I am not in favor of his exercising it except in the emergency and upon the conditions I have named, and which I trust and believe may never occur. If I can understand logic at all, there is no inconsistency in the two positions. As I merely moved it pro forma, I now withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa by striking out the first two words. I am not certain, Mr. Chairman, that I precisely understand the effect of the bill proposed by the Committee of Ways and Means. There was a law passed last session, the first section of which authorized the issuing of bonds of a particular form. The second section allowed $200,000,000 of the amount authorized by the first section to assume the form of Treasury notes, differing in form, susceptible of being applied to different purposes, and of a form which permitted them, I believe, to constitute an additional circulating medium. I understand the proposal now to be-and if I am in error I will be very glad to be corrected-to enlarge the quantity of money, or of value, that is authorized to be issued under the second section of the act of June 30, 1864, in the form peculiar to that second section. In other words, it is to extend the amount of those notes beyond the $200,000,000 in the form which the second section allows.

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Chairman, in compliance with the request of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS,] I desire to correct that misapprehension of his. There were $200,000,000 authorized under the first section of the act of June 30, 1864, to be issued in the peculiar bonds which he has referred to. That power was partially, and only partially, exhausted by the Treasury Department. Under the second section they have proceeded with the issuance of seven-thirties, and are still proceeding with it, until there is but a small portion, less than half, of the amount authorized by the second section remaining unissued. The Department cannot return to the first section and issue the balance unissued under it, in seven-thirties, for the first section does not authorize it. The effect of this bill, therefore, with the proviso proposed by the committee, is, so far from enlarging the power of the Secretary, to confine the exercise of that power to the balance unissued under the second section, and does not permit the Secretary to go back to the issue of bonds under the first section.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I am still not clear as to the operation of this bill, or what is intended to be accomplished under it. The first section of the act of June 30, 1864, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, on the credit of the United States, $400,000,000, for which he is to issue a particular form of bond. The second section says that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue on the credit of the United States, and in lieu of an equal amount of bonds authorized by the preceding session, Treasury notes not exceeding $200,000,000. I understand, now, that the purpose is to allow a sum additional to the $200,000,000 provided for in the second section to be issued in the form authorized in the text. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. KASSON. I trust the gentleman will be allowed to proceed, as I have consumed part of his time.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I am endeavoring to get, if possible, some intelligence of the matter before the House. At this moment I am absolutely at sea. As to doing it in five minutes, I cannot do it.

Mr. KERNAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the effect of passing the law proposed will be to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to add $70,000,000 of legal-tender notes to the legaltender notes now in circulation. In other words there is now $70,000,000 unissued of what was authorized to be issued by the second section of the law of last June. The Secretary is authorized to issue that, and, in addition, to issue $130,

000,000-in ten dollar notes, if he chooses to do so-which he has power now to issue in bonds under the first section of the act of June 30, 1864. We therefore confirm his authority to issue $70,000,000 legal-tender notes, which he now has, and, in addition, if we pass this act, he may issue $130,000,000 more in circulating notes bearing interest, but which are not legal tender. In other words, we give him by law authority to issue $130,000,000 in notes which he may now, as the law stands, issue in bonds.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I withdraw my amendment, and offer another one-to strike out the last word, merely for the purpose of making further inquiry.

The first section of the law of last session authorizes the issuing of $400,000,000 of bonds. The second section provides that $200,000,000 of that amount may be put in the shape of Treasury notes. The bill now reported from the Committee of Ways and Means declares that, in lieu of the bonds authorized to be issued by the first section of that act, the amount remaining unsold at this date may be issued in the form of Treasury notes, under the second section; so that the effect of the bill is to transfer $200,000,000 from the first section to the second section, or so much of the $200,000,000 as may now remain unissuedstated, I believe, at $70,000,000 or some larger amount. The Treasury notes issued under the second section may be and have been issued in such a form and of such denominations as to enter into the circulating medium of the country. A gentleman in this House showed me awhile ago a fifty dollar note professing to be issued under that section.

Mr. STEVENS. Under a subsequent section, not under that section. These notes were issued in exchange for legal tenders, with a view to the destruction of the latter.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. There is, Mr. Chairman, nothing to prevent just such notes being issued under the second section. The gentleman who is at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means proposes to offer a proviso limiting to some extent the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury under the second section; that is, providing that no legal-tender notes shall be issued. But, sir, something more is required. Although a note be not a legal tender-that is, although a man may not be coercible to receive it-yet if it be in form and amount susceptible of being used in ordinary exchange, its value is the same as if it were an absolute legal tender. It will pass from hand to hand to the same purpose; it will be received upon the credit of the same Government; it will have exactly the same effect in increasing, and therefore inflating, the currency.

Now, sir, I am not willing to put in the hands of any officer the power to issue one more dollar, if it can be, under ordinary circumstances, treated or used as or converted into a circulating medium. The credit of the Government can supply itself, and must supply itself, by loans, on long date or short date, for regular investments here or in Europe, without disordering the currency of the country or making people pay two or three prices for the necessaries of life, or reducing the fixed incomes of persons to one half or one third of what they really are. There is no state of circumstances that can justify such a thing; there is certainly none now probable; and I will act only in view of what is probable, and will cast no vote that directly or expressly or by implication authorizes such a thing in one shape or another. Now, if it is possible to put this bill in such a shape as to prevent that construction being put upon it, it shall have my vote; otherwise, I

cannot vote for it.

Mr. PRICE. I must oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland. I desire that he shall not strike out any part of my amendment. I am in favor of assisting the Committee of Ways and Means in this matter; and I aw only sorry to find that my efforts to assist them have been so little appreciated. Now, sir, this cuts down the amount of bonds to be issued, and increases the amount of Treasury notes to be issued; and all I have to say, and all that need be said, in reference to it is simply this: I propose that the Secretary of the Treasury shall not have power to issue anything but seven-thirties. The seventhirties are a good investment; everybody appears

to be in favor of them; and I propose that the Secretary of the Treasury shall not issue anything but the seven-thirties.

In reference to the argument that he cannot issue anything else, let me say one word. I hold in my hand a fifty dollar note, issued on the 15th of August, 1864, and under the authority of the act of June 30, 1864, the very act which this bill proposes to amend. A gentlemen near me has another note of the same kind, a ten dollar note. So you see, Mr. Chairman, that, under that act, the Treasury Department does issue notes which go to swell the volume of the currency; and I propose that this shall not be done under this bill when it becomes a law.

Mr. STEVENS. I thought I had already sufficiently explained that those notes were not issued under the first and second sections, but under a subsequent section, authorizing the issuing of them for the exchange of legal tenders, with a view to the destruction of the latter. All the notes in that form have been issued under that section of the act.

Mr. PRICE. That explanation is legitimate and correct; but I think the committee must see that if the Secretary of the Treasury could, under the original law, issue these bills, which are legal tenders, and which go to swell the volume of the currency, he can, under the amendatory act now proposed, do the same thing, provided we do not restrain him in that respect.

Now, if the seven-thirties are what the country wants and all the gentlemen say that they arethen I do the country and the Secretary of the Treasury no injustice in offering my amendment, because I only propose that the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue just what the country says it wants, and what the gentlemen on this floor, including the Committee of Ways and Means, say is demanded. I propose to restrain the Secretary of the Treasury from doing just what everybody says he ought not to do. What objection, then, can there possibly be to my amendment? Certainly none whatever.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I withdraw my amendment, and move to strike out the last four words.

Mr. Chairman, there is still a little confusion on this subject. The gentleman at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means states, what I have no doubt he is perfectly accurate in stating, that, as a matter of fact, no new legal-tender notes have been issued under this section, and that the fifty dollar note shown me by my friend from Ohio and the ten dollar note shown me by my friend from Massachusetts were issued under a particular clause of this section giving to the Secretary of the Treasury the right to cancel and destroy any Treasury notes heretofore issued under the authority of this act, and substitute therefor an equal amount of Treasury notes such as are authorized by this act. While it is true in point of fact that the Secretary of the Treasury may not have exercised his discretion to issue all of them in a shape susceptible of being used as currency, yet the power, it seems to me, still there exists, and it was because the power existed he was authorized under this very section to redeem in another form of security and issue these very notes in lieu of them.

I am not complaining of the Secretary of the Treasury. I do not see that he has abused the confidence reposed in him. do not say that he has issued a single dollar of the original $200,000,000; but I say that the language of the section authorizes him, and that authority I object to.

Mr. KASSON. I wish to state further, in answer to the gentleman from Maryland, that the purpose I at least, as one of the members of the Committee of Ways and Means, sought to accomplish will be shown by interpreting the amendment proposed by that committee. It is provided that this act shall not be so construed as to give any authority for the issue of any legal-tender notes in any form. So far I use the language of the committee. Now for my own: "Beyond the balance unissued of the amount authorized by the second section of the act to which this is an amendment." I state that to be the purport of the committee's amendment, and certainly what I intended to be the purport of it. I desire to have it fully expressed, as much so as any member of this House.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Let me interrupt the gen

tleman. Why issue any more legal-tender notes? Why not stop where we are?

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, rose.

Mr. KASSON. Let me answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I will say that I know of no reason or necessity for the issuing of them at this time.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Let us stop them.

Mr. KASSON. If from some disaster in the money market our troops should be deprived of the payment necessary for the support of their families, and we should not have means to recover from that disaster, where is the member who would deny the power to furnish depreciated currency, if gentlemen choose to call it so, and supply the wants of the Government?

Mr. SCOFIELD. Where is the capitalist in the country, if that emergency should arise, who, would not furnish the means to pay the troops?

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that I agree with the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, that these capitalists are not willing to loan money without some compensation; and I also think that they will not loan it unless they believe they will do better in loaning it to the Government.

I will now hear the question the gentleman from Maryland desires to ask.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I ask my friend from lowa why he will not accept this as an amendment to the section?

Provided, That no note issued under this law shall be a legal-tender note, and no note shall be issued of a less denomination than $100.

That prevents it, first, from becoming a legaltender note; and secondly, of being of such a denomination as will circulate as currency. I propose to offer the amendment at some proper time.

Mr. KASSON. I have no objection to so much of the amendment as fixes the denomination of $100. Touching the other I have no authority from the committee.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, by unanimous corsent, withdrew his amendment.

Mr. MORRILL. I move to strike out the last two words to make a few remarks.

Mr. Chairman, if the Committee of Ways and Means had concluded to report a bill here merely authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to obtain loans according to the form of the second section of the act of June 30, 1864, I suppose that all the purposes of the Secretary of the Treasury would have been accomplished. That is all this act will do if we pass it as it has been reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, with the amendment subsequently proposed by the chairman. We did not think it wise at the present time to give any authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to issue legaltender notes in any form. That power, under the law of June 30, 1864, has not been exercised except to issue notes for those which have been canceled, and under a former law varying the form, so as to issue six per cent. compoundinterest notes. But there has been no absolute increase of currency, but rather a diminution of even that class of notes under the administration of the present Secretary of the Treasury.

Now, as the Secretary will be bound by law, if this act shall pass, he will have the authority which was conferred upon him by the act of June 30, 1864, to issue legal-tender notes to the extent of sixty or seventy million dollars. With that we do not propose to interfere at all. The Secretary of the Treasury says that power is indispensable to him, and that it will be indispensable to anybody who administers the power which he now has, that he shall have that option remaining in order to enable him to negotiate loans on fair terms. That he considers to be all that will be necessary, and he will be perfectly content if no more power be granted. I trust that under the present circumstances in reference to the power, now nearly exhausted, for the issuing of these seven-thirties, we shall not restrict him as to the particular form.

It has been said that the power should be limited to the issuing of notes not less in amount than $100. Why, many of our soldiers will be glad to obtain these bonds in small amounts, and so will many small capitalists.

Mr. GARFIELD. I am very anxious to have the gentleman answer a question or two. The first section of the act of June 30, 1864, author

ized the issuing of $400,000,000 in bonds. The second section allowed $200,000,000 of that amount to be issued in Treasury notes, compound interest, semi-annually, or in other forms. Gentlemen tell us that of that $200,000,000 not a dollar has been issued under that clause; and therefore the Secretary of the Treasury has the whole range of that $200,000,000.

Mr. STEVENS. "Some of it has been issued in the shape of seven-thirties.

Mr. GARFIELD. Now, the bill before us asks that the remaining bonds of the first section, which could not be issued in notes, may also be issued in notes. It seems to me therefore, if, as gentlemen say, the Secretary has not used the power conferred upon him under the first clause of the second section, they want to give him still more power than that which he has already.

On the 12th day of this month there had been issued at the Treasury Department $120,000,000 of compound-interest notes, like those which have been exhibited on the floor this morning, six per cent. compound notes, interest payable semiannually. I took the information myself from the Treasury Department.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Does the gentleman mean that we shall understand that $120,000,000 of the six per cent. notes have been issued under the authority contained in the second section of the bill? Have they not been issued to redeem previous notes, called United States notes?

Mr. GARFIELD. I do not say they were all issued under the authority of the act referred to, but I do say that the whole issue of notes of that description was $120,000,000 on the 12th of this month; and that they, together will all other notes issued by the Government of the United States, not includiug national currency, amounted to a fraction over $707,000,000.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I would inquire whether the $120,000,000 were not issued to cancel legaltender notes?

Mr. GARFIELD. I understand they were issued to take up legal-tender notes, and that it is a mere transfer of the currency before the country. But the $200,000,000 of notes of this description authorized by the second section of the act of June 30, 1864, have not been used, and it is proposed to extend the power in reference to them.

Mr. MORRILL. I withdraw my amendment. Mr. STEVENS. I move to strike out the last word of the amendment for the purpose of saying, once for all, that gentlemen do not seem to understand that these compound notes referred to are to be issued under the second section of the act of 1863, which will be found upon page 710 of the Statutes, of which $400,000,000 were authorized to be issued upon the conditions therein contained. By the bill of 1864, the Secretary of the Treasury was allowed to issue the same kind of notes, but merely to exchange for those. It was done in that way, and no other.

Now, if gentlemen wish to embarrass the Department, when we have gone as far as we think it proper to go in the proposed amendment, that no legal-tender notes shall be issued; if they wish to take away all authority to issue seven-thirties, without which the Department cannot get along, let them do it. It is for our friends to say whether they intend to sustain this Government or not.

I'move that the committee rise for the purpose of closing all debate upon this bill. The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SPALDING reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had, according to order, had under consideration the special order, being a bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that all debate in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the special order be closed in one minute after its consideration shall be resumed.

Mr. HOLMAN. I believe the debate can be closed upon only one section at a time.

The SPEAKER. Only upon one section. Mr. STEVENS. Then I'move to close all debate upon the first section and the amendments pending thereto.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules, and that the House resolve itself into the Committec of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The motion was agreed to.

So the rules were suspended; and the House accordingly resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and resumed the consideration of the special order, the pending question being on the amendment offered by Mr. PRICE.

The question was taken, and the amendment was disagreed to-ayes eleven, noes not counted. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I move to add to the first section of the bill the following proviso: Provided, That no notes issued under the law shall be a legal tender, and no notes shall be issued of a less denomination than $100.

The question was taken, and there were-ayes 22, noes 45; no quorum voting.

Mr. WILSON called for tellers.

Tellers were ordered; and Mr. HOOPER and Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, were appointed.

The committee divided, and the tellers reported -ayes 54, noes 39.

So the amendment was agreed to.

There being no further amendments offered to the first section of the bill, the Clerk read the second section.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend the second section by striking out all after the word "advisable" in the seventh line down to the end of the section, as follows:

And the Secretary of the Treasury is further authorized to issue bonds of the description issued under the authority of the aet of 22d June, 1863, in pursuance of the notice for ❝ proposals for loans," dated 8th September, 1860, to subscribers to that loan for the one per cent. deposited under said notice and not repaid: Provided, That the bonds so issued shall bear not more than five per cent. interest: And prorided further, That fractional amounts may be repaid in lawful money of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I make this motion because I am not quite satisfied, from the evidence which we have, that these bonds ought to be issued. It may be that hereafter we shall be supplied with sufficient evidence to induce us to grant these bonds. During the last Administration, proposals were made for bonds payable, I believe, in 1871, and a deposit was required at the time that proposal was made of one per cent. A large number of those who made proposals paid up, but the loan fell in value according to my information. Some say that it was because the Secretary of the Treasury did not call for it, and others say that it was because the loan thus fell; but for some reason or other a portion of those who had bid did not go on and comply with their contracts. The loan went below par. Now it is above par, and they come in and ask that the deposit which they had made as a forfeiture shall be given to them in bonds.

As I said before, I am not satisfied that it was the fault of the Government that they were not paid. My information about that is various. The Treasury Department has heard that Mr. Cobb did not call for them. The information from other very respectable sources is that they declined to pay it up. Therefore I do not wish to express an absolute judgment on the question now, and would rather have further time to consider it. If it is proper we can put it into another appropriation bill.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, that obviates the necessity of some inquiries that I was about to make of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means; but there are one or two other points on which I desire information. The gentleman will excuse me, for I have no other means of obtaining information on the subject. The first point on which I desire to make an inquiry is in regard to the amount of $4,000,000 specified in the fourth line of the second section. Why is that special sum selected? I wish also to make an inquiry about the sixth line-" or, if he shall find it expedient, in Europe at any time" to dispose of these bonds he may do it. Is it worth while to put in these words? What is the object

of them?

Mr. STEVENS. When these bonds were issued, $4,000,000 worth of them were sent to Lon don for the purpose of being disposed of. They were never disposed of. They remain on hand now in Europe. This is to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to dispose of them either here or in Europe, and to receive either our own

money or the money of Europe for them; that is, not only our own gold coin, but European gold coin. That is the only object.

Mr. BROOKS. One further inquiry. I should like to know from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in whose hands these bonds are in Europe.

Mr. STEVENS. The Secretary of the Treasury does not name the parties in whose hands they are. But I understand they are deposited in the hands of Baring.

Mr. BROOKS. Hypothecated there?
Mr. STEVENS. No, sir. Deposited there

for sale.

The question was taken on the amendment offered by Mr. STEVENS, and it was adopted.

Mr. STEVENS. Iintended to offer an amendment, but as that offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS] has been adopted, I am not sure whether we will ask the House to pass the bill. I move now that the committee rise and report the bill to the House,

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. SPALDING reported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration, as a special order, a bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, and had directed him to report the same back to the House with two amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. I move the previous question on the bill and amendments.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I ask my colleague to withdraw the motion so as to let me offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I wish to amend the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS,] by inserting after the words "this law" the words "nor the act to which this is a supplement."

Mr. STEVENS. I rather think that if the House agree to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Maryland we shall not ask for the passage of the bill. I cannot withdraw the motion for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, which was first on the first amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as follows:

Add at the end of the first section:

Provided, That no note issued under this law shall be a legal tender, and no note shall be issued of a less denomination than $100.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, demanded the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. KASSON. I wish to inquire of the Chair whether that amendment is not susceptible of division.

The SPEAKER. It is not. An amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union must be voted on as a whole.

Mr. KASSON. There are two distinct propositions in it.

The SPEAKER. The rule is that an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole as an entire amendment is not divisible. If the amendment were offered in the House as an independent proposition, it would be divisible; but, being reported from the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it must be voted on as a whole.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 60, nays 63, not voting 60; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Blaine, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cole, Cox, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Denison, Driggs, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Charles M. Harris, William Jolinson, Kalbfleisch, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Lazear, Long, Mallory, McDowell, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Noble, Odell, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Samuel J. Randall, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Scofield, Sloan, Spalding, William G. Steele, Strouse, Townsend, Tracy, Wadsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Williams, Wilder, and Wilson-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Ambrose W. Clark, Cobb, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, English, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Philip Johnson, Julian, Kasson,

Kelley, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, MeIndoe, Moorhead, Morrill," Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Norton, Orth, Perham, Pike, William II. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollius, Scott, Shannon, Stevens, Stuart, Sweat, Thayer, Upson, and Van Valkenburgh-63.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Alley, Anderson, Blair, Bliss, Brandegee, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Coffroth, Cravens, Thomas T. Davis, Dumont, Farnsworth, Grider, Griswold, Hall, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Hulburd, Hutchins, Francis W. Kellogg, King, Knapp, Law, Le Blond, Marey, McKinney, William II. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Smith, Smithers, Starr, John B. Steele, Stiles, Thomas, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Whaley, Windom, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-60.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I move to reconsider the vote just taken.

Mr. STEVENS. I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Pennsylvania. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 65, nays 64, not voting 53; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Arnold, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Ambrose W.Clark, Cobb, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, Frank, Gooch, Grinnell, Hale, Benjamin G. Harris, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jolin H. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, Meindoe, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Perham, Pike, William H. Randall, Alexander II. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Shannon, Sloan, Stevens, Stuart, Thayer, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, and Whaley-65.

NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Blaine, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Coffroth, Cole, Cox, Cravens, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Driggs, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Harding, Harrington, Charles M. Harris, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, Law, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marey, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Noble, Odell, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Samuel J. Randall, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scofield, Spalding, William G. Steele, Strouse, Townsend, Tracy, Wadsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Williams, Wilder, and Wilson -64.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. AlJen, Alley, Anderson, Ashley, Blair, Bliss, Brandegee, William G. Brown, Freeman Clarke, Thomas T. Davis, Denison, Dumout, Griswold, fall, Herrick, Dulburd, Hutchins, Francis W. Kellogg, King, Knapp, Lazear, McAllister, McDowell, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Patterson, Pomeroy, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Rogers, Scott, Smith, Smithers, Starr, John B. Steele, Stiles, Sweat, Thomas, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Windom, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Fernando Wood, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-53.

So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The next amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole was read, as follows:

Strike out in the second section all after the word "advisable," as follows:

And the Secretary of the Treasury is further authorized to issue bonds of the description issued under the authority of the act of 22d June, 1860, in pursuance of the notice for "proposals for loan," dated 8th September, 1860, to subscribers to that loan for the one per cent. deposited under said notice and not repaid: Provided, That the bonds so issued shall bear not more than five per cent. interest: And provided further, That fractional amounts may be repaid in lawful money of the United States.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment."

There was no objection.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to amend by adding the following:

Provided, That this act shall not be so construed as to give any authority for the issue of any legal tender notes in any form, beyond the balance unissued of the amount antthorized by the second section of the act to which this is an amendment.

On this amendment I call the previous question. Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I ask the gentleman to allow me to move an amendment to his amendment, providing that these notes shall not be of a less denomination than $100.

Mr. STEVENS. I cannot yield for that purpose. That is the very part of the gentleman's amendment to which I most objected.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, and under the operation thereof the amendment of Mr. STEVENS WAS adopted.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read

third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. STEVENS demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. HOLMAN demanded the yeas and nays, and tellers on the yeas and nays.

Tellers were not ordered, and the yeas and nays were not ordered.

The bill was then passed.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OVER.

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

next.

The motion was agreed to.

POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL. Mr. STEVENS. I move to take up House bill No. 659, making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866, in order that it may be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Is it the ordinary Post Office appropriation bill? Mr. STEVENS. It is.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Then I hope it will be taken up and passed.

The bill was taken up and read.

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

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Mr. ASHLEY, by unanimous consent, presented joint resolutions of the Legislature of Ohio directing the Senators and requesting the members from that State to vote for the amendment to the Constitution of the United States in relation to slavery; which were laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

APPORTIONMENT OF NAVAL RECRUITS.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting, in compliance with a resolution of the House, a report in regard to the apportionment of naval recruits among the different enrollment districts; which, on motion of Mr. PIKE, was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and ordered to be printed.

CHANGE OF VESSEL'S NAME.

Mr. ODELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill changing the name of the William F. Storer, owned by Charles H. Marshall, to the International; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

And then, on motion of Mr. STEVENS, (at five minutes to four o'clock, p. m.,) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE. MONDAY, January 23, 1865. Prayer by Rev. THOMAS BOWMAN, D. D., Chaplain to the Senate.

The Journal of Thursday last was read, containing the following passage:

"Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. No. 98) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Alfred 11. Terry, and to the officers and men under bis command, for their gallantry and good conduct in the recent capture of Fort Fisher, reported it with an amendment."

PROPOSED CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL. Mr. WILSON. I desire to move a correction of the Journal. I see that it states that the joint resolution of thanks to General Terry was reported back with an amendment. There was no title to the resolution as it was originally introduced, and it was reported back in a new draft in order to perfect it. I propose to amend the Jourmal by saying that it was reported back without amendment.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That is a proposition not in accordance with the fact. The resolution was reported back with an amendment, according to the Senator's own statement, and the Journal is right.

Mr. WILSON. The form of the resolution as reported was precisely the same as the original resolution, with the exception of the title. It was not intended to amend the resolution except to make a new draft to render it more perfect.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Journal is in accordance with the fact, however.

Mr. DIXON. Do I understand the Chair to decide that the Journal cannot be corrected?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Certainly not. The Journal now stands precisely according to the facts in the case, if the Chair understands the Senator from Massachusetts. The Journal can be enlarged by stating the additional fact that the amendment was precisely the original resolution with a title, if that be the fact.

Mr. DIXON. With deference to the Chair, I will say that the amendment of the title was a different amendment, entirely, and subsequent to the first proposition. The chairman of the committee stated that he reported the resolution with an amendment, and he then sent to the Chair the identical resolution without the crossing of a tor a dotting of an i, and the Senate then proceeded

to accept that as an amendment. Afterward the chairman also recommended that a title should

be added, and that amendment was made. The

Journal states that the resolution itself was reported with an amendment, striking out the whole resolution and inserting another, which I, with due deference to the Chair, submit was incorrect in point of fact. I submit this amendment to the Journal, to make it read

"The Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the joint resolution," "reported it without amendment and recommended its passage."

The VICE PRESIDENT. If that is in accordance with the fact, the Journal can be so amended, but that is not in accordance with the

statement of the Senator from Massachusetts.

March 4, 1865; which were read and ordered to be filed.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War, stating that he will cause a prompt response by the Adjutant General to resolutions of the Senate of the 10th instant calling for information in relation to major and brigadier generals in the service of the United States and officers of the regular Army of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of the Interior, communicating, in obedience to law, copies of the accounts of the superintendents and agents having in charge the refugee Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Indians, for the third quarter of 1864, which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the pliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 12th Secretary of the Interior, communicating, in cominstant, information in relation to the amount paid by that Department for attorney and counsel fees from June 30, 1863, to January 1, 1865, which was ordered to lie on the table.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War, in response to a resolution of

the 5th instant calling for information as to the number of men enlisted in the naval service who have been credited on the military quotas of the respective States and the principle and evidence

on which such credits were allowed; which was ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. WADE presented the petition of citizens of Ohio, praying that provision may be made for the exchange of Union soldiers now in the hands of the rebels; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

He also presented the memorial of a committee appointed at a convention of the publishers of January 4, 1865, praying for a repeal of the duty weekly newspapers in Ohio, held at Columbus, on printing paper; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented thirty-four petitions of officers in the military service of the United States,

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator will state the transaction precisely as it took place in the Senate, the Journal will be made to correspond with the fact.

Mr. WILSON. I should like to have it corrected by inserting the additional words proposed, and that will make the whole matter right.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator will state that he meant to report the resolution without amendment, the Journal will be so corrected if there be no objection.

Mr. CLARK. I submit that it can be of no consequence in the world to amend the Journal after these explanations. It should stand as it is.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Connecticut was understood to offer a proposition.

Mr. DIXON. I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts does state, as the Chair has suggested, that the committee intended to report the resolution back without amendment.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Senator from Massachusetts so states, the Journal will be so corrected.

Mr. WILSON. I do.

The VICE PRESIDENT.

The Journal will be so corrected, if there be no objection. Mr. CLARK. What was said by the Senator from Massachusetts was entirely correct. I occupied the chair at the time. He reported back the resolution in a new draft, and it was taken up as in a new draft and amended and passed. The Journal is right as to the precise point of fact.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The proposed correction will be made, the Chair hearing no objec

tion.

CREDENTIALS PRESENTED.

Mr. CHANDLER presented the credentials of Hon. JACOB M. HOWARD, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Michigan a Senator from that State for the term of six years commencing

cers; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. WILSON presented the petition of Brigadier General T. J. Wood and other officers in the military service of the United States, praying for an increase of the pay of Army officers; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

officers in the military service of the United States, He also presented fifty-five other petitions of praying for an increase of the pay of Army officers; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. HARLAN presented the memorial of Robert B. Riell, lieutenant United States Navy, praying that he may be allowed his proper promotion in the grade of commanders, which has been denied him in consequence of the report of a medical board; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Mr. HOWARD presented the memorial of the officers of the 4th Michigan infantry, asking for an increase of pay; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

He also presented a petition of clerks in the Treasury Department, praying for an increase of salary; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. SUMNER presented a petition of acting assistant surgeons United States Army, praying for an increase of compensation and that they may be exempt from draft, and that they may be reimbursed for all expenses necessarily incurred in the line of their duties; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

He also presented a petition of citizens of the the enactment of a law to secure a republican United States residing in New York, praying for form of government and abolish and forever prohibit slavery in the United States; which was referred to the select committee on slavery and freedmen.

Mr. MORGAN presented the petition of Thomas Murphy, praying that he may be re

lieved from any obligation to the Government under his contract of the 26th of June, 1864, to furnish two hundred thousand blankets at ninety cents per pound; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. VAN WINKLE presented a petition of citizens of Baltimore, praying for the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition of officers in the military service of the United States, praying for an increase of compensation; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN AND REFERRED.

On motion of Mr. GRIMES, the memorial and papers of John Ericsson, praying compensation for services in the construction of the machinery and propeller of the United States steamer Princeton, were ordered to be taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Claims.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. WADE. I desire to present a joint resolution from the Legislature of Ohio, instructing the members of Congress from that State in relation to amending the Constitution of the United States relative to slavery, which I ask to have read.

The Secretary read, as follows:

Joint resolution instructing the members of Congress from this State in relation to amending the Constitution of the United States relative to slavery.

Whereas the declaration" that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is as true and self-evident now as when first enunciated by the fathers and founders of the Republic; and whereas the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" to the people of the United States; and whereas slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is a violation of the inherent and inalienable rights of men, a crime against justice and humanity, a disturber of the Union and of domestic tranquillity, a hinderance to the common defense, a spoiler of the public liberties, has inaugurated civil war, and is the cause of our national calamities: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use their influence and vote for the propo sition now pending in Congress to amend the Constitution of the United States so that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction, and giving to Congress power to enforce such prohibition by appropriate legislation.

Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress a copy of these resolutions.

JOHN JOHNSTON,

Speaker of the House of Representatives. CHARLES ANDERSON, President of the Senate. Mr. WADE. Inasmuch as that subject has been acted upon by the Senate, I move that the resolutions lie upon the table, and be printed. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. BROWN presented resolutions passed by the constitutional convention of the State of Missouri instructing the Senators and Representatives from that State to cast their influence to secure the passage of the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery throughout the United States; which were ordered to lie upon the table, and be printed.

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. 607) to provide for an advance of rank to officers of the Navy and Marine corps for distinguished merit; and the bill (H. R. No. 598) making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic expenses of the Government for the year ending the 30th of June, 1866. The message further announced that the House had passed the following Senate bill and joint resolution, without amendment:

A bill (S. No. 72) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July 2, 1862; and

A joint resolution (S. R. No. 99) tendering the thanks of Congress to Rear Admiral David D.

Porter, and to the officers, petty officers, seamen, and marines under his command, for their gallantry and good conduct in the recent capture of Fort Fisher.

The message further announced that the House had passed the joint resolution (S. R. No. 98) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Alfred H. Terry, and the officers and men under his command, with an amendment, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested.

The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills and joint resolutions, in which the concurrence of the Senate was requested:

A bill (H. R. No. 631) to provide for holding courts in the western district of Missouri, and to prescribe the times thereof;

A bill (H. R. No. 664) for changing the time for holding the circuit courts in the district of Virginia;

A bill (H. R. No. 659) making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1866;

A bill (H. R. No. 677) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide ways and means for the support of the Government, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864;

A bill (H. R. No. 692) in reference to prosecutions for libel in the District of Columbia;

A bill (H. R. No. 649) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending 30th June, 1866;

A joint resolution (H. R. No. 139) of thanks to Major General George H. Thomas and the army under his command; and

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

DEFICIENCY BILL.

Mr. SHERMAN. 1 desire to present a report from the committee of conference on what is called the deficiency bill. I ask that it be read, and then I desire to submit a motion in regard to it. The Secretary read, as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill of the House, 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.

THADDEUS STEVENS, GEORGE E. PENDLETON, EDWIN H. WEBSTER, Managers on the part of the House. JOHN SHERMAN, JOHN CONNESS, CHARLES R. BUCKALEW, Managers on the part of the Senate. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to submit a motion that the Senate insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and ask for another committee of conference. Before that motion is put, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the question of difference on this bill, and I should like to have the attention of the Senate and a deliberate vote upon the question between the two Houses. It is very important that this bill should be passed to-day or to-morrow. Many of the appropriations are necessary for the support of the Army and Navy. The bill contains an appropriation of over one hundred million dollars, nearly all of which is for the Army and Navy. The point of controversy between the two Houses grows entirely out of this clause of the deficiency bill:

To enable the Clerk of the House of Representatives to execute the resolutions of the House of July 4, 1864, directing payment of additional compensation to its officers, clerks, and other employés, and to the House reporters for the Congressional Globe, a suin sufficient for that purpose, being $37,991 40, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and the same is hereby added to the contingent fund of the House of Representatives; but no payment shall be made under this provision to any other persons than the clerks, officers, or other employés of the House, and the reporters for the Congressional Globe.

The Senate struck out this clause containing an appropriation for twenty per cent. extra compensation to the employés of the House for the last session, by a unanimous vote of the Com

mittee on Finance, and also by the unanimous vote of the Senate, there being no discussion in the Senate, however, and no vote by yeas and nays. The House now insists that we shall retain this provision in the deficiency bill. The other amendments of the Senate are not disagreed to. Although they are not yet concurred in, there is no disagreement in regard to any of them except this one; and now we must treat the question deliberately, whether or not we will consent to the increase demanded by the House of twenty per cent. to their employés for the last session. The conferees on the part of the House insist that it is discourteous to the House to refuse to allow them to make this appropriation, and they evince some feeling on the subject. The appropriation by the resolution of the 4th of July last is admitted to be illegal. They first proposed to pay this $37,000 out of the contingent fund of the House. The Clerk of the House of Representatives refused to pay the money without the sanction of the Comptroller. The question was submitted to the Comptroller, and he refused to pass the vouchers for the payment of this money. I have before me the letter of the Comptroller, referring to the law on this subject, from which it is perfectly clear that neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate could provide for such an appropriation as this without a law authoriz ing it.

Senators who have been here for some years will remember the controversy about extra compensation to the employés of the two Houses. Prior to 1854 it was usual for both Houses to allow their employés twenty per cent. extra compensation at the end of each session. In 1854, however, the increase was made permanent, and all further allowances of that kind were prohib ited by law. But subsequently, between 1854 and 1858, the custom again sprang up of allowing the usual extra compensation of twenty per cent. In 1858, as it was supposed, Congress cut off all pretense of that kind in either House by this pro

vision:

"That no part of the appropriations which may at any time be 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, unless such clerk, messenger, or other attendant be so employed by a resolution of one of said Houses."

Under this law, no extra compensation has been allowed to the employés of the two Houses since 1858, and it was believed that this fifth section cut off all power by either House to allow extra compensation. When the House, however, passed the resolution of last session, the question was submitted to the Comptroller. He quoted this law and decided that he was not authorized to pay the money demanded by the House of Representatives, and he has refused to pay it. Thereupon this provision was inserted in the deficiency bill, to legalize the payment by the Comptroller, and the question is whether we shall as

sent to it.

I may say on behalf of the Committee on Finance that we determined unanimously that we would not approach the question of the increase of the compensation in this way; that the House had no more power to increase the pay of their officers than the Senate, or the President, or the Executive Departments. The law expressly forbids it, and expressly provides that the contingent fund shall not be used for increasing the pay of the employés. The law is clear and plain. We had to meet this question, therefore, not as a question of privilege on the part of the House, because the House had no power to raise the compensation of their employes; but we had to meet it as a question of policy, whether we will now consent to increase the compensation of our own employés. Looking at the question in that light, when we came to examine the pay of the employés of the Senate and the House of Representatives, we found that it was already higher in proportion than the pay of corresponding officers in the Executive Departments. Besides that, as the employés .of the two Houses only work during the session, and many of them are paid for the whole year, they have that advantage over the employés of the Executive Departments. We therefore could not justify an extra allowance to