so far, and I think the sub-committee went so far as to satisfy them entirely, and to satisfy the Committee on Finance that it was unwise to make this limitation, and to prevent any further experimenting on this system. It is well known that there has grown up a division in the Treasury Department, and in the country, in regard to printing paper for the Government It is printed now in the Treasury Department by two methods. It is printed by the hydrostatic method of printing and by the old method of the hand press. Those who have been used to the hand press still adhere to it; and you may go down into the Treasury Department to-day and find the old spoke-wheel press, where a man turns it around with his hand and uses his foot to help him along, which has been in use forty years in printing bills. When I asked the man who stood at that printing press the other day how it happened that they used that old press which has been in use for forty years, when in almost every other branch of machinery improvements had been made, all he could say to me was: "I do not know, sir; I have been a printer thirty years and I have used it all the time; and I suppose it is because the old fogies like it." That was the man who stood at the press; but I do not propose to enter into that diversity of opinion or quarrel. The committee examined the method of printing by the hydrostatic process, and came to the conclusion that it was by no means wise to prohibit the experiment. One design of the hydrostatic printing is to prevent the wetting of the paper as you have to do by the hand press, and drying it, and shrinking it by the process of wetting and drying. When the paper is wetted and dried it dries unevenly, and pulls the plates by shrinking unevenly, and thus the lines get out of form. It became very desirable, therefore, that there should be a method of printing the paper without wetting it. This is accomplished by the hydrostatic process. The paper is laid on the plate dry, receives the impression, and comes out precisely as it went into the press as to form. The advantage gained in that particular is in several ways. In the first place, you avoid the expense of wetting it down; then you avoid the expense of drying it; and then you avoid the expense of pressing by power presses as you always have to do paper which has been wetted and printed. But there is another great advantage in that regard, that when the paper has been printed it comes out in sheets. Take a sheet on which you have printed the fractional currency, upon which there may be sixteen or eighteen different bills. The old method, when it was printed by hand, was to take your shears and trim that all around, and then cut them all apart, because you were obliged to follow the lines as they had altered in shrinking. You can take now a sheet, printed by the hydrostatic method, put it into a machine; it goes through almost immediately, and comes out ail cut up and laid into a little hopper by itself; and the machine is so perfect that, when you have run through a certain amount of sheets of a given denomination, say ten dollars of currency, when ten dollars of that currency is laid in the hopper, the machine itself rings a bell and notifies you that you have got just ten dollars in that place. So of the bills for the banks; they are all trimmed in the same way whenever printed by the hydrostatic method. The experiment has gone along so far that the committee would not be warranted, and I do not think the Secretary of the Treasury would be warranted-and he does not desire nor does he think it advisable-to stop that method of printing, but to go on with it to perfection. I am so well satisfied with it by my examination and from the acquaintance I have with machinery as to be able to say that I have full confidence that it is to be a success. I desire the Senate to understand that in making these remarks I have no allusion to the character of, or what may have been said about, any employé in the Treasury Department. The committee examined further than the mere machinery and hydrostatic printing. They examined the system that is carried on there in regard to the safe-keeping of the money, and I think they would like to examine further on that point; not because they do not find all the proper securities so far as they have gone, but to make the research more extended, more critical, and more satisfactory that it is safe for the Government. I of their own eyes as far as they could, and by their own examination, having spent considerable time in the Treasury Department. can say and I think I shall be justified in say-selves, not upon the testimony of individuals, but ing it from the committee, and be borne out in it by the conclusions of the individual members of the committee-that I have never been in an establishment where the securities seemed so great as in that Department. Mr. GRIMES. As the Senator has given a great deal of attention to this subject, I should like a little information that he has not given us. About a year ago we had a large amount of fractional currency, of the denominations that he has exhibited to the Senate, printed upon a paper that was in the habit of splitting. I desire to know whether or not that was printed by the hydrostatic process, and whether that paper was or was not manufactured by Mr. Gwynne. made in the reports on this matter. One of the first requisites was-and this will bear more upon the other point (I mean the accounts of Dr. Gwynne) than upon this particular proviso-the production of a paper in the Treasury Department that should be entirely distinctive from any other paper. You can go into the book-stores here on your streets and buy the ordinary bank-note paper; you can go down to Hudson Taylor's and buy bank-note paper; you Mr. CLARK. I do not understand that they can buy the bank-note paper on which some of used the paper manufactured by Dr. Gwynne. "I your currency has been printed, because there cannot speak, however, on that point with that has not been enough produced in the Treasury certainty that I can in regard to some other things. Department for the production of all your cur- I know there was complaint of a paper that did rency. It is very desirable to prevent counter-split. I know that was one of the complaints feiting and to produce a paper that cannot be photographed. I have in my pocket and will exhibit to the Senate-they will see nothing particular about it at any distance-a piece of paper produced in the Treasury Department, [exhibiting one of the denominations of the fractional currency of the latest issue.] It has the appearance of being rather coarse, but the bit of paper which I now hold in my hand has been washed, has been dipped in a tumbler, thoroughly wetted and soaked, and then washed with soap, and rubbed as hard as you would rub an ordinary piece of cloth, and yet it cannot be destroyed; and one peculiarity of this paper is that it cannot be by any process of wetting returned to pulp again. But it has another advantage beyond this: there is mixed with the pulp that produces the paper a chemical preparation, a fibrous preparation which you can hardly notice by looking at it, but which photographs black when an attempt is made to photograph it, so that it can be detected at once. One great design and desire of the Department is to prevent the counterfeiting of your currency. Mr. GRIMES. Will the Senator tell me how much of the currency has been printed on that paper? Mr. CLARK. I cannot from any figures that I have.. Mr. HENDERSON. Very little of it. Mr. JOHNSON. Are they going on to use that kind of paper? Mr. CLARK. They are. It is particularly desirable for the currency. The committee examined so far as to see that these experiments were very valuable to the Government. Mr. COLLAMER. That paper has nothing to do with the hydrostatic printing. Mr. CLARK. The Senator will remember that I said this bore more particularly upon the Dr. Gwynne part of the case than upon the question of striking out the proviso; but this is clearly connected with the other experiments that have been going on, and tends to show somewhat the value of the experiments. I think that the experiments now going on in the Treasury Department are only a repetition of what has occurred in the world before, and what will probably occur many times again, so often as you have improvements in machinery that aid in the process of manufacture. Here are two systems; here is the machinery for the hydrostatic system of printing, which is in operation. I ask Senators if it-is wise to limit the appropriation so that further developments of this system cannot be made, so that further experiments cannot be had to ascertain the value of any improvement that may be made. Is it wise to shut right down upon the system here and say we will have no further experiment in this matter? That is not the opinion of the subcommittee; that is not the opinion of the Finance Committee; that is not the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury; it is not, I think, the opinion of anybody who has examined the matter to see what is the advantage of this system. I know there are persons who are opposed to it. I know there are persons who come to us to give us information on the subject, but the bias of those gentlemen could easily be detected on examination. The committee attempted to satisfy them Mr. GRIMES. There was laid on our desks, yesterday, a book that purported to be a report from Mr. Clark, the gentleman who has charge of the printing in the Treasury Department. I do not know how it got here, or how it came to be published; it has no imprint of any publishing establishment on its face. It does not bear the appearance of having been sent here by the Secretary of the Treasury, to whom it is addressed, but I take it as the genuine report of this gentleman. If I am not mistaken, his report states that that split paper was the product of one of these experiments of Mr. Gwynne; and the purpose I had in making the inquiry of the Senator from New Hampshire was to ascertain if he could tell us how much that experiment cost the Government. Mr. CLARK. I have no information on that subject. I do not know that that was an experi ment. Mr. GRIMES. I should like to know how much these various experiments that have been made with the hydrostatic presses have cost the Government. Is the committee prepared to in- form the Senate how much these various presses have cost, how many have been broken down, how much has been expended for repairs? Mr. SHERMAN. I can tell the Senator precisely. The contract, which I have here among these papers, was $1,100 for each press. Seventy presses were delivered. The amount spent for repairs was comparatively a small item. All the particulars of the claim are here. The total amount for the presses was $77,000, together with some expenses for repairs. Mr. GRIMES. How many of them have been abandoned as incapable of being repaired? How many of them are lying in a pile outside of the Treasury? Mr. SHERMAN. I have no information, except from the reports before me. The difficulty with some of them was that the frame-work was too weak to bear the enormous pressure caused by the system. That was the result of a dispute as to whether wrought iron or cast iron would resist the greater pressure. Since the change has been made to the present machines they are perfectly satisfactory. The only change is in reference to the form. As I am not a machinist, and do not understand printing or anything about it, I may be mistaken in regard to this; but the cost of repairing has been comparatively very slight. Mr. CLARK. I desire to make one state ment further in regard to the capacity of these presses. By a hand press two persons will print in a day from about seven hundred to eight hundred impressions. By a hydrostatic press, if a man could ink fast enough, you could have four thousand impressions; but ordinarily, the person who inks the plate cannot stand any such labor, and they get through about two thousand impressions a day, and those impressions are paid for by the piece. They pay for impressions on the hand press a dollar for one hundred impressions. On the hydrostatic press they pay a . dollar for the first four hundred, and then seventy cents a hundred for the remainder of a day's work, bringing the whole cost about seventyfive cents to the hundred; that is three fourths of the cost upon a hand press. I was satisfied that the fact was so as the prices are now, There is no question that when this method of printing first came to be attempted, the printing went on. slowly, as is the case with all new kinds of busi ness; but it has been brought to a very great degree of perfection, and I think if gentlemen would take the trouble to go and see for themselves, especially if they have any idea of mechanics and machinery Mr. COLLAMER. When the work is done, how is the impression? Will it rub off, or is it good? Mr. CLARK. There has been a great deal of complaint made that the work done by the hydrostatic press was not so good as that done by the ordinary press. I am not a printer; but I took the impressions, and I took a microscope to examine them, and, in my judgment, the work done by the hydrostatic press is full as good as that done by the ordinary power press. The Senator from Vermont inquires if it rubs off. He will see that that is not so from the exhibition of this bill which I have already presented to the Senate, which has been rubbed, soaked, and washed in soap and water, and the impression has not started a particle. I say I have not examined this matter so far as I desire to do, as a matter of curiosity and knowledge, even. Mr. COLLAMER. The question is, will it endure? Mr. CLARK. The gentleman can tell by examination as well as I can. I understand it wears admirably well. Mr. GRIMES. How long is it since that kind of paper has been used? Mr. CLARK. I cannot tell how much of it has been used or how long. I put it to the test that I have stated. I could not try it as the old man said he had tried his locust posts. He said they would last forever, for he had tried them out and out. But so far as I have been able to put this to the test, it wears admirably well. I'do not think it is quite wise for the Senate to stop these experiments. I think they should go further. Mr. GRIMES. Then I understand the Senafr to admit that this system has not reached that degree of perfection which he expects it will attain. Mr. CLARK. Certainly I do; and I will admit it as to everything else in the world, even as to mankind. I hope we have not yet got to that degree of perfection which we expect to reach. I will admit it in regard to the Senator's iron-clads. [Laughter.] It is the very reason I want to go further. I do not want to stop here. other. I examined the books in the Department. I ran over the books showing the rapidity of work for a great many days. The hydrostatic or dry system of printing and the wet system of print then it has to go into the drying room and passed Now, as to the economy of the two methods, I cannot testify on that point with so much positiveness as the Senator from New Hampshire has done. The result of my examination is that, so far, it has been proved the hands have printed more sheets in the day on the old press than on the hydrostatic press. Nevertheless we stood there and saw both presses at work, and it is true, as is said by the Senator from New Hampshire, that on the hydrostatic press sheets may be thrown off just as rapidly as one man can put on the ink. While that press is at work, one man has as much as he can do to ink the plates, whereas on the other press, on the old press, the same man not only inks the plates but passes them through the press. My own judgment was that a plate would pass through that press in about the time it would through the new press. Some members of the committee, I believe, differed with me on that. I do not know but that the Senator from New Hampshire thought it would pass through the new press in less time than through the old press. I thought it took about the same time. There is another fact, that two hands are employed upon the old press, and three hands are employed upon the new press; and there is but one experienced workman employed on either of the presses. To the amount of labor expended in actually printing a thousand sheets on the old press must be added the amount of labor expended in wetting the sheets, in drying them, and in trimming them, so that about the same amount of labor probably is actually expended in getting at a thousand sheets of currency on one press as on the other. kept separately and distinctly. I examined them, and my understanding is that they average about eight or nine hundred sheets per day upon the old presses, and about five, six, and seven hundred upon the hydrostatic presses; not exceeding that. I am not prepared to say that I would condemn them as being less economical on that account, because there are other things to be taken into consideration which have been alluded to by the Senator. It takes three persons to run one of these hydrostatic presses and to produce an impression, and yet those three persons cannot produce as many impressions during the day as the old wet press. Iam perfectly satisfied of that. I have no prejudices against the hydrostatic printing; I intend to support this amendment; I am not prepared to say either that further experiments ought not to be made in this thing; but I am prepared to say that a vast amount of money has been expended in the Treasury without any compensating benefits that I can see so far. They may be there, and something may be produced in the future that will triumph over many of the difficulties that I see in that Department now. I am not prepared to say that when this distinctive paper-a matter that I did not attempt to look into shall have been produced in the Treasury Department, a system of printing may not be adopted upon these hydrostatic presses that will prevent counterfeiting in all future time. That would certainly be a very great item to be taken into consideration in the examination of a question of this sort. Mr. COLLAMER. I will ask the Senator whether, when we have that sort of paper, we have not the same security in either form of printing. Mr. HENDERSON. That is one of the points that Mr. Clark urged upon us when we were examining this subject; but really I am not prepared to say that the distinctive paper may not be printed upon either press. Mr. CLARK. Undoubtedly. Mr. HENDERSON. I know it can be; but I was about to remark, I am not prepared to say it can be printed upon either press and yet avoid counterfeiting. In the hydrostatic system of printing the object to be attained is simply this: to procure power enough to force the ink into dry paper. In the other system the paper is made moist. It does not require much force to put the ink in the paper in this moist condition. It is forced into it with much less trouble. I am not My own judgment is that the experiment is not complete. The Senator from Vermont says that a vast amount of money has been expended. It is true; but though I profess to have no sort of intimate acquaintance with mechanics of any kind, it seems to me so manifest that a press which will keep one hand employed all the time in ink-sufficiently acquainted with matters of this sort more economically than a press which requires Mr. HOWE. I do not know that anything more need be said on this point; but I was one of the sub-committee who were instructed by the Finance Committee to look into this matter somewhat, and I desire to say in reply to some inquiries originated here by the Senator from Iowa, that we were not instructed to investigate the past operations of the Currency Bureau, or of that branch of the Treasury Department. Our inves-ing, must, when made to work perfectly, print tigations were directed to the particular matter referred to in the proviso now proposed to be struck out. The House of Representatives had voted to prohibit any further experiments upon this new method of printing our currency, and we were instructed to look into the matter, make up our minds whether it was advisable to prohibit further experiments or not, and our investigations V re directed therefore to two methods now in vogue in that bureau of printing this paper. The two methods have been described to you by the Senator from New Hampshire. So far as my own examination went, it was directed mainly with a ew of determining in my own mind which of the two methods was the most economical, and which was the safest, which furnished the best security to the Government. Unquestionably there is great danger of loss, let this vast amount of paper be printed where it will. I was satisfied equally with the Senator from New Hampshire who has just testified upon that point that every security was thrown about this branch of your service that I could conceive was practicable by either method of printing. It will be manifest to the judgment of every one that the more hands this paper is passed through the greater is the danger of loss. By printing on the hydrostatic press, it will pass through at least the hands of three less sets of hands than when printed on the old press. If printed on the old press it has to go, when the impression is placed on one side, first into the wetting room, and a class of laborers are employed in the wetting room; then the impression is laid upon one side; Mr. HENDERSON. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything, but I was one of the committee who visited the Treasury Depart ment in order to examine these two modes of printing; and my impression is that our examination was hardly sufficient to enable us to pass an opinion that the Senate can rely upon in reference to these two modes of printing. The hydrostatic system of printing has been adopted there, as I understand, for the purpose of giving us a bill that cannot be photographed or counterfeited. How far that has been accomplished by this system of printing, I am unable to say; I really cannot tell. I cannot say that the one cannot be as easily counterfeited as the other. There is this thing most assuredly about it, that the machinery necessary for the hydrostatic printing costs eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty times as much as the machinery necessary for the other printing. I differ with my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, about the rapidity of this printing. Although I am not prepared to say that the bydrostatic printing ought to be rejected. I cannot say that it is as rapid a mode of printing as the to pass any judgment as to the superiority of one or the other of the systems. The press that will turn off nine hundred sheets a day, that is the old press, or the wet system of printing with the paper moistened, costs $125; the hydrostatic press will cost $1,100. It has to be made very strong, because the water pressure that is thrown upon the machinery is estimated, I believe, at forty tons. I will ask the Senator from New Hampshire if that is not so. Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Mr. HENDERSON. You can put, of course, any weight you desire upon it. There is no trouble about obtaining any amount of force that you wish to apply; it can be easily obtained. But whether this ink can be forced into the dry paper so as to make it stay there is a question that I really did have some doubts about. I know that Mr. Clark, who is the superintendent of this Department, insists that there is no doubt about it at all, and I know it is the belief of both the distinguished gentlemen who have recently been at the head of the Treasury Department that it is a success, and therefore I am not prepared, from the examination I have made, to say that it should be entirely discarded. But, sir, while I am up I desire to say a word or two in reference to a matter that I do really have a very great deal to complain of. It seems that these gentlemen, Mr. Clark and Mr. Gwynne, have been making these experiments in the Treasury Department. Perhaps the experiments were all necessary. I do not know what may be accomplished by them. Perhaps we may arrive at a perfection in the system of printing by these experiments that nobody else would find out, and if so, the Government would save a great deal of money. The Senate can judge of that just as well as I can; and they would not be any wiser after they had gone there and examined it. The hydrostatic system is the most expensive one in the machinery; and I do not see, taking everything into consideration, that there is a great deal of difference in the handling of the paper after the impressions are produced, or in the production of the impressions. As the Senator from New Hampshire very properly says, in the wet system you have got to dry the paper twice, and then it has to be again pressed, in order to straighten it out, and then you have to trim it; but the Senator forgets one thing that he might have mentioned; and that is, that in the hydrostatic system of printing the paper has to be trimmed also. It is trimmed before it is printed, and not afterward. Mr. CLARK. It is trimmed by machinery. Mr. HENDERSON. Both of them can be trimmed by machinery, and both of them were trimmed by machinery. There is no doubt of that. I was going to remark that there have been expended in the Treasury at least $300,000 in that machinery. How far a large portion of it may have been necessary under any given state of circumstances I cannot say; but one thing is certain, that these parties, after experimenting with the Government money, have gone and taken out patents in the Patent Office for four of these machines, or for four improvements. Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator will remember, and it is due to these men to say, that they have never presented any claim to the United States for this patent; that they themselves propose to surrender any such claim. Indeed, this amendment provides that they shall surrender any such claim. If other parties outside of the Government of the United States desire to use this machinery, they claim the patent right. Mr. HENDERSON. Then we take the benefit of it so far as we are concerned; but, as the Senator from lowa very properly said, whenever machinery fails there and is cast aside, whose loss is it? The Government loses it. These parties have gone on and they have tried machine after machine, and whenever a machine fails the loss falls upon the Government. I object to the modus operandi of getting up this machinery and of experimenting. A large sum of money has been expended in that way. Whether the benefits already derived, or hereafter to be derived, are sufficient to compensate the Government for this loss, is another question. The Senate can judge of that just as well as I can. But I wish merely to state that these patents have been obtained, and although the amendment Mr. GRIMES. Who owns these patents? Mr. HENDERSON. They do; Stewart Gwynne and Clark. Some of them are owned by them jointly, and others are owned by either the one or the other. I think one is taken out in Clark's name, one in Clark & Gwynne's name, and the other perhaps in Gwynne's name alone. I know it is said by Senators that if this amendment be adopted the Government will have the use of this machinery. I admit that fact; but do not these parties hold that machinery against all other parties in the world except the Government of the United States? Mr. WILSON. What objection is there to that? Mr. HENDERSON. Why, sir, if the Government of the United States would furnish me $300,000 to experiment upon and give me the benefit of those experiments, I could make any amount of money out of it; and so could any other mechanic. There is not a mechanic in the country that would not take up such an offer from the Government. There is no doubt that if you would || furnish any man with $300,000 to make experiments, and let him experiment for four or five years, and then allow him to patent the machinery after it has been perfected and matured, leaving the Government to lose all the machinery that has been defective, he certainly could do well out of it. That is a very serious objection, and Senators will see it at a glance. While I am upon this subject I desire to make a remark upon another branch of it, because I do not wish to trouble the Senate any more about it. One of the members of the sub-committee, who examined this printing with me, has remarked that he saw nothing whatever in the examination to show otherwise than that there was perfect security in the production of these sheets. The Senator remarked, also, that at any paper store in town the paper might be purchased upon which this money is printed. legislation on the part of Congress in reference to this subject. I had no time to examine into this thing; in fact it would take many days to do it; and I was not sent there for that purpose, but for the other purpose of examining merely, as I understood, into the two different modes of printing, and whether it was justifiable on the part of the Secretary to continue these experiments in printing. I turned my attention mostly to that. The other matters Mr. CLARK. I said at Philp & Solomon's. came up incidentally, and I mention them inciMr. HENDERSON. Well, at Philp & Solo-dentally here. I think there ought to be some mon's, or at any other paper store. I think, from my examination, that one of the greatest advan tages to be derived from the experiments that have been carried on in the Treasury Department will be in the production of a distinctive paper. If that distinctive paper can be produced, it will be worth all the experiments that have been made. There is no doubt about that. I do not know whether they will be able to secure it or not. I care not what the printing may be in the future; whether it be the dry printing or the moist printing, it is certainly desirable that a distinctive paper should be produced; and I, for one, would be willing to see money appropriated for the purpose of producing that paper. But, Mr. President, I am not so well satisfied upon another subject that has been alluded to, and that is, the perfect security of the Government in the printing of these notes and bonds. So far as my examination went, I saw nothing in the manner in which this department is being conducted to show any design whatever on the part of Mr. Clark to do otherwise than what was right; I saw no disposition manifested on his part that would indicate that he desired in any manner whatever to take any advantage of the Government; but I supposed the Senators who were with me in that examination came to this conclusion, that if Mr. Clark so desired, serious loss could be entailed upon the Government through his management there. When the paper upon which all our bonds and notes are printed is brought into the Treasury Department, it first goes into the hands of Mr. Clark. It is true that recently some sort of a check has been devised in having a paper department; but, as I understand, all this paper first falls into Mr. Clark's hands, and the paper department never gets the control of the paper, except through his hands. It first goes to him, and it is turned over by him to this paper department, and the paper department turns it back again to him upon his order. I know the Secretary of the Treasury has provided that a mark be put upon the paper before it is delivered to Mr. Clark; but the Senator from New Hampshire will bear me witness that Mr. Clark himself said that he did not regard the mark upon it as any protection whatever against wrong, and the gentleman who has charge of the paper department admitted that there was no sufficient protection of the Government, and that he was attempting to perfect the system so as to have a complete check upon it. The very mark that is put upon the paper in this paper department is taken off the paper before it is printed, or at the time it is printed, and it is cut off before the notes go out; so that there is no mark left upon it at all. I must say, from my examination into this matter-although I saw no evidence of a disposition on the part of anybody to defraud the Government; although I saw in every department there an earnest desire apparently, and especially so on the part of Mr. Clark himself, to give us all the information we could possibly desire and that might be necessary to a correct understanding of this whole subject-that that department is not properly conducted; that there ought to be checks there that do not exist there; that another system ought to be adopted. I examined the books in the different depart ments of this business. Most of the books are kept by ladies. I suppose they are not experienced book-keepers. I doubt whether any examination has ever been made of the books by the heads of the different departments; and I doubt whether there is to-day a single book-keeper that knows anything about the other books of the office. I have never seen any report here; but I doubtexceedingly whether, upon a correct examination of those books from the beginning of this immense work of printing the notes and bonds of the Government in that establishment, they would perfectly compare. Much has been said in the country against Mr. Clark. I saw nothing prejudicial to him in my examination; but I desire to state here, and I will state it while upon the subject, that Mr. Clark has almost entire and perfect control of all the vast machinery of printing these notes and bonds for the Government. He is the soul of the whole thing. His word is law in the whole department. Mr. HOWE. Oh, no. Mr. HENDERSON. In this department of printing. I apprehend that if Mr. Clark were to ask that forty or fifty sheets of money be printed upon either system, or forty or fifty bonds be printed and turned over to him, there is not an employé in that department that would object to it, or that could object to it. I understand from clerks of that department that such has been the case; that he has asked these things to be done; and it is necessary at times that they should be done. I do not mention the fact for the purpose of creating any suspicion against Mr. Clark. I desire to do no such thing. I understand that two thousand five hundred millions of money have been printed upon these presses, and I say that no one man ought to have entire control of a department of this character. I know there are checks; but what checks are there? They are such checks as Mr. Clark himself has established. I do not understand that the Secretary of the Treasury has ever prescribed a single check over him. If so, where is it? Where did you find it? As I understood from Mr. Clark himself, he said that this paper check was all nonsense; that it was no check upon him. He said, "I can go to Philp & Solomon's and buy as much paper as I desire to purchase, and come back here and have it printed by corrupting three or four different individuals in this department." He is perfectly frank on that subject. I say this vast power ought not to be intrusted to one, two, three, or four different individuals; but there ought to be a system of checks provided, not by Mr. Clark, but by the Secretary of the Treasury, over this whole matter. It is a subject of exceeding importance to the nation, in my judgment. I merely allude to it now, from the little examination I have made, in order that the Senate may, at the proper time, take the subject into consideration. Mr. HENDRICKS obtained the floor. Mr. CLARK. I do not desire to protract this debate, but I cannot permit the statement of the Senator from Missouri to go out unchallenged. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana was recognized by the Chair. Mr. HENDRICKS. If the Senator wants to speak now, I have no objection to giving way. I merely wanted to move that the Senate take a recess until half past seven o'clock. ["Oh, no."] This bill, I suppose, ought to be finished to-night, and we cannot do it unless we have an evening session. ["Oh, no."] I withdraw the motion; I see Senators do not desire it. Mr. CLARK. I could not but feel, as the Senator from Missouri was making his remarks, although I have no doubt he intended them to be fair and to convey his impressions rightfully to the Senate, that he was giving a very wrong impression in some particulars in regard to the method and manner and the security of printing this paper money; and I hope the Senate will bear with me for a few minutes while I give them somewhat in detail the method in which this paper money is printed. It is true that the invoice of the paper which comes from abroad is made to Mr. Clark, or it comes into his possession. Then it goes from him to the counting or paper clerk, as he is called. He makes an examination of all the paper, and he stamps every sheet with these words, "Treasury Department;" and he stamps every sheet in such a way that if you are printing two bonds upon one sheet, upon each of these bonds will be this stamp of "Treasury Department." He takes an account of it, and has it in his department; and that paper clerk is not under the control of Mr. Clark. When Mr. Clark makes a requisition upon the paper clerk for paper, he answers the requisition, delivers him the paper, and charges it to him upon his books; and those books in that department, as I said before, are not under the control of Mr. Clark; and the paper clerk can tell at any time how much paper he has delivered to him stamped in this way. Then it goes from the paper clerk to the count-. ing clerk; and the counting clerk is under the direction and control of Mr. Clark. She takes the paper and has it counted twice by two individuals. If they are found to agree, she enters upon the book the amount that she got from the paper clerk. If they are not found to agree, she at once notifies the paper clerk of the discrepancy there is in the paper, and the account is ascertained and made right. roller, laid upon one end, and a pressure brought Mr. CONNESS obtained the floor. Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to make one remark, if the Senator pleases, while this subject is fresh in my mind. Then the counting clerk delivers it to the next person who has to handle it; and that is the man who bronzes it, or puts on the bronze figures. The man requiring the paper to bronze makes a requisition on the counting clerk for so many sheets, say a thousand sheets. She counts it out to him, and charges it to him. He takes it, and goes into his department, and there he counts it to see if it is right. If it is right, he enters upon his book that he has received so many sheets from the counting clerk. If it is not right, he then notifies the accounting clerk that it is not right, and that mistake is corrected. The bronzer then puts the paper through his bronzing machine,in and when it is all bronzed it is counted again by the man bronzing it. If he finds he has exactly the number of sheets charged to him in the morning for bronzing, he takes it back to the counting clerk and delivers the paper over to her, and then he is credited with so much paper. That makes his account correct. There, in the simple process of getting the paper from the paper clerk and delivering it to the bronzer and carrying it back, it has been counted four times. Then after it goes back to the counting clerk, and is needed to be delivered to some other person for some other operation, say to the man who is going to make the first impression, so many sheets are counted out to him, and charged to him. He does his work, and finding it right, carries it back, and his account is correct. So it is with every operation until the whole work is perfected, and the last work to be done is to put on the seal. It then comes back to the counting clerk; is there again counted; is delivered to the sealing clerk, and then brought back and counted again. In this operation sheets are destroyed sometimes. For instance, a sheet will be torn, and it is necessary to replace it. How is it done? Say a thousand sheets are counted out, and given to a clerk who has it in charge distinct from the counting clerk, which are put in packages by themselves. When a sheet is wanted for the purpose of duplicating one which has been destroyed one is taken out from the package, and this destroyed or imperfect sheet is put right in its place, so that when every one of these sheets is used in this way, you have a thousand imperfect sheets in their place brought in. I do not undertake to say that this operation cannot be made more secure. I think it very likely it can; because I think it can be improved, as everything else can; but I think the statement of the Senator from Missouri was calculated to convey a wrong impression. It certainly conveyed a different impression from what I got. It undoubtedly conveyed truthfully the impression the Senator got. But that is not precisely the point. The point is, whether these experiments should be continued further; because this objection as to insecurity applies to the printing of the paper, wet as well as dry; it applies to the whole system of printing in the Treasury Department, and involves the important question of the work being done there or in New York. I desire to state one thing to illustrate this method of printing in the Treasury Department or printing in New York. The engraver takes a piece of steel plate, and he engraves upon it the precise bill that he wants, upon softened steel. Then that plate is hardened, made as hard as the workman can make it. Then there is a hard piece of steel, what they call a Mr. CONNESS. I yield. Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator from New Hampshire certainly misunderstood me if he understood me to cast any reflection upon any officer the Department. Mr. CLARK. I did not understand the Senator so, and did not mean to say so. What I did say was that his remarks were calculated to give a wrong impression about the security there might be there. that in making these impressions there are hundreds and hundreds of sheets that are returned in a damaged condition? Mr. CLARK. Not that many. Mr. HENDERSON. Well, say six or seven sheets with one workman during the day. They are working a great many wet presses there; some one hundred and fifty or two hundred I suppose; and they are working a large number of hydrostatic presses. A great number of those impressions are badly made. Take the case of a newspaper. It is not every impression that is a good one. Those upon which bad impressions are made are cast aside. If a workman during the day loses eight or ten out of his nine hundred, he only accounts for the good impressions. Now I ask, may not a workman return at night eight or nine bad impressions of $1,000 bonds? Mr. HOWE. My friend will allow me to ask him if each one of those workmen who takes possession of any portion of this paper does not account for each sheet of the paper? Mr. HENDERSON. If the Senator will wait a moment I will explain that. Mr. CONNESS. I yielded to the Senator from Missouri because I did not think he would occupy a great deal of time; but if he is going to discuss the question at length I must claim the floor. Mr. HENDERSON. I am not going to discuss it at length. If the Senator had not interrupted me he would have seen what I was driving at. I know the workmen have to account for the bad sheets; they have to return them; but I say that Mr. Clark may put into the hands of one single workman, if he chooses to do it, and get forty $1,000 notes printed, on paper that never went into the paper clerk's hands at all. Mr. HOWE. How so? Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator will see in an instant. It would only be necessary for him to corrupt one man. He has only to corrupt one single individual in the Department; because there is not a sufficient check on the paper department. Mr. HOWE. I cannot assent to that proposition. Mr. HENDERSON. If there is a want of se- Mr. GRIMES. Who appoints them? Mr. JOHNSON. I submit to my friend from Missouri whether upon the question immediately before the Senate the topics to which he is referring are pertinent. Mr. HENDERSON. I am aware that this is out of order; but I desire to say a word or two in answer to the statement of my friend from New Hampshire, that I was mistaken on this subject. It is a matter of importance; and while this sub referring to a matter of such vast importance in order that the proper legislation may be had to provide checks that I do not perceive to be at present in that Department. The Senator says he can get no paper unless it is stamped. What sort of a stamp is that? Why, sir, I would not have observed it hardly if the gentleman who is at the head of the paper department had not called my attention to it. It is a very small stamp just on the margin of the sheet. In making the impression it does not reach the stamp, and in trimming the sheets afterward,ject is up, I think there is nothing improper in the stamp is always cut off. You cannot see that stamp upon a bond or upon a Treasury note. This old paper clerk never sees it after it leaves him, and whether he has any settlement or not I do not know. I think he said he never had any settlement. I asked Mr. Clark himself, (and I believe the Senator was present at the time,) "Is that any check upon you?' He replied, "I can put that stamp upon a thousand sheets in the course of a few hours; I can go and make a stamp, and put it on the sheets as fast as I choose." I had that from Mr. Clark himself, and I think it was stated in the presence of the Senator from New Hampshire. Any mechanic could make such a stamp; and I look upon Mr. Clark as one of the finest mechanics in the country, perhaps superior to any I have ever seen. There is no difficulty in making a stamp to compare with this stamp, and to make a similar impression with this stamp. Even if it were not so, it is subsequently cut off or taken off, and it affords no check at all. The Senator talks about this paper clerk being a check. Where is he a check? I asked Mr. Clark himself, "Do you receive the paper first from the paper makers? Is it shipped to you, or is it shipped to the paper clerk?" He told me it was shipped to him and not to the clerk; that he turned it over himself to the clerk. Is he bound to turn it all over? May he not keep fifty thousand sheets back? He can go and buy it. This is what I complained of. I say if he were a dishonest man, and I do not pretend to say he is, he could abstract as much paper and as many bonds as he chose. The Senator says this paper is counted by different individuals. Does not the Senator know Mr. CONNESS. When the question now before the Senate-whether the proposition of the House of Representatives discontinuing these experiments in paper should be stricken out and we should insert in lieu thereof an authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to ascertain how much is due to the parties connected with furnishing these machines spoken of, and that it may be paid-was before the Finance Committee, they examined it with all the care that could possibly be applied to it. In order that it might be examined with relation to the exact quality and kind of printing, a sub-committee was appointed, consisting of the Senators who have addressed the Senate to-day. With due respect to these Senators, with great deference to their judgment, and for the examination they have made, I submit that it has not been so thorough, nor complete, as in my opinion to authorize the expression of a definite opinion now; I mean as to the amount of checks necessary to be imposed, and as to the manner in which the printing is carried on. As I understand, that sub-committee expects to continue their investigations and complete their researches, and then it will be for them to suggest what additional safeguards and checks may be adopted in connection with this printing, which is of so much importance. But the question now directly before us has been passed upon by the Finance Committee, examined with all the care that they could apply to it, and I cannot see, upon a question of this kind, that the Senate can do better than to accept the recommendation that that committee have made. They have certainly been guided by the greatest regard for the public interests. I hope, sir, that we shall come to a vote upon the proposition as it is before the Senate, so that we may get through with the bill which the Senator from Ohio now has before us. We have all got business waiting, important to us, but we cannot get at it until we are relieved from the pressure, worse than a hydrostatic pressure, from the Senator from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on Finance. Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. Mr. CONNESS. Let us vote on this amendment. We are all ready now. Mr. GRIMES. No, we are not. Mr. WILSON. 1 insist on my motion. Mr. CONNESS. I do not wish to discuss now a matter that is irrelevant. When I said we were ready to vote the Senator from Iowa said, "No, we are not." I listen with great attention to the Senator from Iowa when he discusses naval affairs, and when he goes into the minutiae of the subject, and feel that I am instructed when he speaks; but I hope he will not continue the discussion of this proposition, and prevent us from voting on the subject. I hope we shall get a vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION. The motion of Mr. WILSON was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent therein the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by Rev. Mr. GRAY. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr. J. C. ALLEN. I ask indefinite leave of absence for my colleague, Mr. ROBINSON, who has been called away from his seat by indisposition in his family. There being no objection, leave was granted. CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL. Mr. PRUYN. I desire to make an inquiry in regard to the minutes. I wish to know in what manner the proceedings of the joint convention of the two Houses yesterday have been brought upon the Journal of this House. The SPEAKER. In pursuance of the law which provides that the proceedings of the joint convention shall be spread upon the Journals of both Houses. Mr. PRUYN. I did not hear that part of the Journal read, and I want to know in what manner those proceedings are introduced. Is it on the report of the Speaker as to what took place? The SPEAKER. The uniform usage, following, as the Chair understands, the provision of the law, is that such proceedings shall be placed upon the Journals of both Houses; and of course that is done in each House under the direction of the Journal Clerk, who is responsible for the Journal. Mr. PRUYN. The parliamentary method of stating the matter, according to the practice in other legislative bodies, would be that the Senate had met the House in joint convention, and that, when the House resumed its session, the Speaker reported that the joint convention had transacted certain business, stating that business. I do not know how the proceedings of yesterday are introduced in our Journal. I was not here when the Clerk read that portion of the Journal. The SPEAKER. The Chair will examine the matter during the day, referring to the law or rule on the subject. Mr. PRUYN. I think that this is a question of parliamentary practice, in regard to which our Journal should be right if it is wrong. The SPEAKER. The present understanding of the Chair is that the rule or law makes it imperative that the proceedings shall be placed upon the Journals of both Houses. Mr. PRUYN. I think that the practice has been in other cases that, when the House has resumed its session, the Speaker has reported what has taken place in the joint meeting. MAJOR DAVID II. HASTINGS. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War transmitting, in com The SPEAKER. The gentleman is mistaken so far as the practice of this House is concerned. The present occupant of the chair has been present on two previous occasions when the presiden-pliance with a resolution of the House, the record tial vote was counted, and the form of proceeding has been in this respect the same as that read from the Journal to-day. Mr. PRUYN. In what way do the proceedings get upon our Journal? The SPEAKER. They are placed there by the Journal Clerk. Mr. PRUYN. Let the Clerk read that portion of the Journal which introduces the proceedings of the joint convention. The Clerk read, as follows: "The Senate attended in the Hall of the House. "The President of the Senate took the Speaker's chair, as the Presiding Officer, in pursuance of the joint rule of the two Houses, the Speaker being seated on his left, and the Senators having taken the seats provided for them. "The President of the Senate then proceeded, in the presence of the two Houses of Congress, to open the certificates of the electors of the several States," &c. Mr. PRUYN. That is clearly not parliamentary. I refer to it as a matter of parliamentary practice. Our Journal Clerk undertakes to say what was done in the joint convention of the two Houses. That should be an announcement from the Speaker to the House when the House resumes its session. The SPEAKER. That would be at variance with the practice heretofore followed upon the Journals of the House on such occasions. The Chair does not feel at liberty to order the change proposed, but he will entertain a motion for the correction of the Journal. Mr. PRUYN. It is only a question of parliamentary practice, as to the manner in which we get these proceedings upon our Journal. I do not see how our Clerk can put them there, as he has done. The SPEAKER. The joint rules for the guidance of both Houses require that the Vice President shall take the chair, and that the Clerks of the two Houses shall, with the tellers, take seats in front. Mr. PRUYN. Those proceedings are not our proceedings; they are the proceedings of the joint convention of the two Houses. The SPEAKER. The Journal has been made up in strict accordance with the usage. ORDER OF BUSINESS. in an amendment of the Senate to a House bill. Mr. KASSON. I ask to take up and concur Mr.WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I do not object if the morning hour has not commenced. The SPEAKER. The order of the House yesterday looked to the fact that there should be a morning hour, and when the regular order shall be demanded the morning hour will commence, and not before. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My purpose will be subserved, then, by demanding the regular order of business when I want the morning hour to commence? The SPEAKER. By the order of the House, making a morning hour imperative, conference reports and other privileged questions will have to come in after the morning hour. The intention was that there should be a morning hour. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That, undoubtedly, was my understanding. The morning hour has not yet commenced? The SPEAKER. It has not. ACTING ASSISTANT TREASURERS, ETC. Mr. KASSON, by unanimous consent, moved to take up House bill No. 689, to provide for Acting Assistant Treasurers or depositaries of the United States in certain cases. The motion was agreed to. The amendment of the Senate was to insert the words," with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury." Mr. KASSON moved to concur in the amendment. The amendment was concurred in. Mr. KASSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was concurred in; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. of the late trial by court-martial of Major David H. Hastings. Mr. DAWES. I move that it be laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. Mr. BROOKS. What is the case, that we should have all that mass of papers printed? The SPEAKER. It is the case that has been referred to so frequently in debate upon the floor. Mr. DAWES. The importance of the case demands that these papers should be printed in order that the people may see them. Mr. COX. Is all of that large bundle to be printed? The SPEAKER. The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. Mr. COX. Does not the motion to print go to the Committee cn Printing? The SPEAKER. It does not; only motions to print extra copies go to that committee. Mr. COX. Is the motion divisible? Mr. COX. Then I ask that it be divided. Mr. DAWES. On the question of printing, allow me to say that, although those documents are voluminous, it is a precedent to the country. want to know whether a man who stands convicted of twenty-six forgeries is only to be suspended for a term from rank and pay. The SPEAKER. The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. Mr. DAWES. I withdraw that motion; and I desire to say one word in support of the motion to print. At the end of six months this man goes back into the Army, with the record in the War Department that he has been convicted by courtmartial of twenty-six forgeries and the embezzlement of $26,000. Such is the record. Now, he may have been improperly convicted; the evidence may not have sustained the conviction. I know nothing at all about it; but he is either guilty or he is not guilty. If he is not guilty of those charges, it seems to me the War Department ought to have set aside the verdict, and ordered him to be tried again, rather than have permitted the conviction to remain, and alter the sentence to the miserable adjudication that the amount of penalty which is to be affixed upon forgery and embezzlement in this country is only a suspension of and rank for six calendar months. Ynderstand from the proceedings on the trial that not only was this man convicted on these charges, but that he hired witnesses to absent themselves; that the witnesses testified upon the stand to his giving them three and five thousand dollars, and other sums, to absent themselves in Canada, out of reach of process. This case may be all wrong, and he may have been convicted upon insufficient or unreliable testimony; but if that is so I want to know why the verdict was not set aside; why the War Department did not say that he was improperly convicted. But while the judgment stands in this way, with the finding of guilty approved, with the penalty affixed to it, it appears that the judgment of the War Department is that a sufficient penalty for these enormous crimes is simply a suspension of rank and pay for six calendar months. It is a matter of money-making on his part; he goes off with the $26,000 in his pocket, not being required to restore it, for such is the finding and such the record left in the War Department. Now, as I have already said, I know not whether justly or unjustly, he stands convicted, but the War Department seemed to be dissatisfied that the court which convicted him should sentence him to a penalty which seems to me to be a proper one for so enormous a crime. The sentence of the court-martial was that he should pay a fine of $5,000, be confined two years, should restore the $26,000 that he had embezzled, and should continue in confinement until he had paid the fine and restored the $26,000, if the confinement did not exceed five years. That seems to me a punishment in some measure adequate, but the War Department, without setting aside the verdict of guilty, set aside the sentence attached to that verdict of guilty, and substituted this paltry sentence of suspension of pay and reduction of rank for six calendar months. He goes back into the |